Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act

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.

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.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) does not have the power under Section 251 to introduce or assess a new source of income that was not considered by the Assessing Officer. Such additions or assessments of new income must be dealt with under specific provisions like Section 147, Section 148 (reassessment), or Section 263 (revision).

If a statute or law prescribes that a thing must be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner alone and in no other way. This principle mandates strict adherence to statutory procedures.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal solely on the grounds of delay without addressing its merits. The appellant must be given an opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay before the appeal is decided.

The first appellate authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), cannot enhance an assessment by considering a new scope or source of income that was not part of the original assessment proceedings. Its power to enhance under Section 251(1)(a) is restricted to what was originally assessed.

A specific profit percentage determined through estimation in cases involving bogus transactions or accommodation entries does not constitute a binding legal precedent for future similar assessments. Such estimations are fact-dependent and do not establish a general rule.

When taxable income has escaped assessment, the assessee's plea that no fresh material is before the assessing officer to warrant reopening is not relevant.

The Bombay High Court case CIT-10 v. North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. (2014) is cited for the proposition that commercial rights can be considered intangible assets eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if they possess enduring benefit.