Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act
Income-tax Act, 2025: s.360
Section 251(1)(a) falls under section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 360 (Powers of Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner (Appeals)) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.
Read section 360 of the 2025 Act
Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.
The decision most relied on for Section 251(1)(a) is CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (297 CTR 614), cited in 659 of the 935 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.
Leading authorities on Section 251(1)(a)
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.
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.
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 (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution; the law does not empower them to do so. The appeal must be decided on merits and in writing, stating points for determination, decision, and reasons.
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 judicial decision that is purely an estimation exercise not backed by any legal proposition does not form a binding judicial precedent.
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.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner's power of enhancement is limited to the income that was the subject matter of the assessment by the Income-tax Officer.
