“Section 251(1)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)1,012 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 251(1)(a) is Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (187 ITR 688), cited in 1,372 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 251(1)(a)

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT

187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court

1,372

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

297 CTR 614 · 2017 · High Court

659

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry

44 ITR 891 · 1962 · Supreme Court

278

citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot enhance an assessment by introducing a new source of income or by changing the head of income during appellate proceedings.

Skycell Communications Ltd. v. DCIT

251 ITR 53 · 2001 · High Court

253

citing judgments

Technical services involve human intervention and expertise, not just routine or machine-based operations. Routine customer support and standard facility provision through technology do not constitute technical services under the Act.

CIT v. Sardari Lal & Co.

251 ITR 864 · 2001 · High Court

240

citing judgments

An appellate authority cannot introduce a new source of income that was not considered by the Assessing Officer; taxability of new sources should be addressed through reassessment provisions like Section 147/148 or revision under Section 263.

CIT v. Claris Lifesciences Ltd.

326 ITR 251 · 2010 · High Court

196

citing judgments

If approval from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) for an in-house R&D centre is granted during the previous year, the assessee is entitled to claim weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) for the entire expenditure incurred during that year.

Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT

231 ITR 1 · 1998 · High Court

186

citing judgments

The first appellate authority must admit additional evidence if it is necessary for determining the true state of affairs and preventing undue hardship or a failure of justice, even without a specific request and particularly when the case falls under Rule 46A(1)(c).

Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT

266 ITR 99 · 2004 · Supreme Court

181

citing judgments

The Revenue cannot take a conflicting stand from what it had earlier accepted in a previous assessment year without compelling justification. This principle of consistency applies to various issues, including the treatment of customs duty in closing inventory.

Judgments citing Section 251(1)(a)

M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd., Saraikela vs. Deputy Commissione of Income Tax, Circele-1, Jamshedpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/RAN/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.75/Ran/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Anjeneya Ispat Ltd.…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 29, Rain Basera, Sanjay Nagar Colony, Adityapur, Saraikela, Jharkhand- 831013. [Pan: Aagca1031N] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Jamshedpur (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 25.09.2017 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019–20 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹62,64,116. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny. During The Relevant Previous Year, A Survey Operation Under Section 133A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted At The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 16.02.2019. Subsequently, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished Various Details & Documents As Called For. The Same Were Examined & Discussed By The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. During

Section 10(23)Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 40Section 69Section 69C

thinks fit or may direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report to the ld. CIT(A). As per section 251(1)(a) of the Act, in appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment, but there is no such power

Income Tax Offier, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana vs. Balpreet Singh, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1022/CHANDI/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Jan 2026

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Balpreet Singh, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 251Section 69A

held that the assessee deserved one more opportunity to substantiate the claim with supporting evidence. Accordingly, exercising powers under the proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act (effective from 01.10.2024), the impugned assessment order was set aside and the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing ... aside the assessment and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer by invoking the proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, without adjudicating the issues on merits, though the assessee had made submissions during the appellate proceedings. 8.2 However, considering that the assessment was framed

Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Malpani, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5023/MUM/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2015-16 Lalitadevi Giriraj Kishore Income Tax Officer, Malpani, Ward-41(4)(2), 502, 5Th Floor,Sea View Chs, Vs. R.No. 116,Kautilya Bhawan, Near Ram Mandir Temple, C-41 To C-43,G Block, Bkc, Bangur Nagar,Goregaon (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400090. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aadpm9211C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. Ar For Revenue : Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-12-2025 O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Againstthe Order Dated 28-06-2024 Impugned Herein Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “Ld.Commissioner”) U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short „The Act‟) For The Ay. 2015-16. 2 2. At The Outset It Is Observed That There Is A Delay Of 346 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal On Which The Assessee Has Claimed As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Daga , Ld. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Premkumar Arjunda(2107) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay), wherein it has been held as under :- “Section 251(1)(a) and (b), along with the explanation in Section 251(2) of the Act, mandates that the CIT(A) must apply their mind

Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9 (3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1259/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1259/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Pune. Mehta Niwas Bhairavnath Nagar, Kusgaon, Lonavala, Maval, Pune- 410401. Pan : Akepm3983A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By Smt. N. C. Shilpa : Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Are Invalid Since The Requisite Approval/Sanction U/S 151(Ii) Of The Act Is Not Taken. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated Be Kindly Annulled & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 80C

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise

M/S Thdc India Limited, Rishikesh vs. PCIT, Dehradun

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 69/DDN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 270ASection 80

orders of its predecessors. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the invocation of the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act by the Hon'ble CIT(A) and enhancing the income of the Appellant is invalid and contrary to the provisions

M/S Kubera Dal & Besan Millsz, Pune vs. CIT Circle- 5, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1966/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1966/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S.Kubera Dal & Besan V Dy.Cit, Millsz, S Circle-5, Pune. 21 To 24, Marketyard, Gultekadi, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aakfk3139J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateek Jha – Advocate Revenue By Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake – (On Rotation Duty) Date Of Hearing 23/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 24.02.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 28.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... dismiss the appeal on ITA Nos.1966/PUN/2025 [A] account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind

Wines 2000 and Company, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 27(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 1210/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 69A

make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as per section 250(4) of the Act. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment

Saravanan, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Tiruppur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2556/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)

inability to explain the case during reassessment was due to then prevailing covid period, thereby not exercising the discretion vested under Proviso to Section 251(1)(a) properly and reasonably. And, for other reasons and grounds that may be adduced later, the Appellant humbly prays that the present appeal

Saravanan, Tiruppur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Tirupur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2553/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)

Anant Electricals and Engineers, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5454/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40

Jai Hind Souharda Pattin Sahakari Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belagavi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 168/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji16 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Jai Hind Souharda Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Bazar Road, Tal.: Hukkeri, Belgavi-591309 Pan:Aaajj0226F . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal[‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 253(1)Section 80P

dealing with the appeal for passing an order u/s 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) in view of prescription of Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act was required to apply his mind to all the issues which arise

Anwar Husain Mehboob Shaikh, Jalgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2561/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2561/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Anwar Husain Mehboob V The Income Tax Officer, Shaikh, S Jalgaon. H. No.K 258/I Railway North Area, Bhusawal, Jalgaon – 425201. Pan: Bodps9742F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 21.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act, Dated 31.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance ... appeal on 4 account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply ITA No.2561/PUN/2025 [A] clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues

The Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd. ( in Liquidation), Dhule vs. The ITO, Ward- -1, Dhule

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1927/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1927/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Merchants Co-Op Bank V The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., (In Liquidation), S. Ward-1, Dhule. Cs No.2111, Lane No.6, Near Old Amnalner Stand, Nagarpatti, Dhule-424001. Pan: Aaabt0123H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19, Dated 11.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Appellant Contends That The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Ought To Have

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 21(2)Section 250Section 80P

points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration 4 with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide ITA No.1927/PUN/2025 [A] that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce ... dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise

Katrapally Venumadhav, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1396/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 270ASection 282

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय

Katrapally Venumadhav, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1395/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 270ASection 282

Motiwala Auto Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward1(1), Auranabad, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 486/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)

therefore set aside the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO for making denovo assessment under the newly inserted proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Act by observing as under: “5. DECISION :I have carefully considered all the material available on records, the facts of the case, grounds ... additions made and the issues raised herein require a more detailed and exhaustive examination. 5.3 As per the newly inserted proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Act, Commissioner (Appeals) in case of order of assessment made u/s.144 of the Act, may set aside such assessment and refer

Shri Ganadhipati Gandharacharya Kuntiusagar Vidya Sodh Sonstha, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Exemption, Pune, Kolhapur

ITA 2026/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

still when the issue came before Id. CIT(A) who also possesses co-terminus power with that of A.O and as per section 251(1)(a) of the Act. the Id. CIT(A) in disposing the appeal against order of assessment has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul

Shri Ganadhipati Gandharacharya Kuntiusagar Vidya Sodh Sonstha, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Exemption, Pune, Kolhapur

ITA 2025/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Shri Ganadhipati Gandharacharya Kuntiusagar Vidya Sodh Sonstha, Kolhapur vs. ITO, Exemption, Pune, Kolhapur

ITA 2024/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Shri Ganadhipati Gandharacharya Kuntiusagar Vidya Sodh Sonstha, Pune vs. ITO, Exemption, Pune

ITA 2023/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale