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)

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.

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.

Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad
8 SCC 266 · 1999 · Supreme Court
163
citing judgments

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.

Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) Nagpur v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
69 Taxmann.com 407 · 2016 · High Court
159
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Union Tyres
240 ITR 556 · 1999 · High Court
135
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. B.R. Constructions
202 ITR 222 · 1993 · High Court
90
citing judgments

A judicial decision that is purely an estimation exercise not backed by any legal proposition does not form a binding judicial precedent.

Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO
340 ITR 454 · 2012 · High Court
86
citing judgments

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.

CIT-10 v. North Karnataka Expressway Ltd.
51 Taxmann.com 214 · 2014 · High Court
30
citing judgments

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.

Narrondas Manordas v. CIT
29 ITR 748 · 1956 · Reported
14
citing judgments

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.

Judgments on Section 251(1)(a)

Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Sangh, Mithapur vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward (1), Dwarka

In the result, the above penalty appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 783/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 783 To 786/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20) (Hybrid Hearing) Mithapur Nutan Bal Shikshan Vs. The Ito, Ward-1, Sangh. Dwarka Sangh Bal Mandir Zanda Chowk, Mithapur-361345 (Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaam0815C (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 270ASection 271A

Our Vision Entertainment LLP, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4724/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Ms. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Our Vision Entertainment Income Tax Officer Llp, 15(1)(1), Office No.304, Twin Complex B 103, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Block, Andheri East Mumbai - 400020 Opp Marol Fire Brigade Maharashtra - 400 059 Pan: Aaefo8646C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 250

Savita Mitkari, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 2193/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2193/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Savita Mitkari, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.302, G4, Gangadham S Pmt Phase Ii, Market Yard, Building Pune 411037. Commercial Complex, Swargate, Pune 411037. Pan: Arppm8052L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Sagar Kale Shri Arvind Renge – Addl.Cit(Dr) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 06/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2025 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.2011-12 Dated 30.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu vs. Sh. Taahooo Ahmed Bazaz, Srinagar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 346/ASR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 346/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asstt. Cit, Vs. Sh. Taahooo Ahmed Jammu. Bazaz, Lala Building Old Secretariat Road, Tile Bazaz Shaheed Gunj, Srinagr, Srinagar. [Pan:-Atupb5595L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr None Respondent By Date Of Hearing 16.10.2025 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

Birju Kumar, Vaishali vs. ITO, Ward- 1 (3), Vaishali

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

ITA 333/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

Vipulkumar Parbhubhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 741/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.741/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Vipulkumar Parbhubhai Patel, Vs. Ito, 378/1/2, Nishar Faliya, Puna Gam, Nr. Ward – 2(3)(4), Police Chowki, Surat - 395010 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Coipp7919F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/12/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(3)Section 69

Bipin Jashvantlal Desai, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1030/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalbipin Jashvantlal Desai Income Tax Officer, Vs. 7, Nandanvan Bunglows, Ward-1(2)(1) Nr Shivganesh Bungalows, Ahmedabad Hebatpur Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380059

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 251(1)(a)

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 and 2 are remanded back to the Jurisdictional Assessing

ITA 5548/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 68Section 80G

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limted, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 and 2 are remanded back to the Jurisdictional Assessing

ITA 5543/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 250Section 68Section 80G

Lucknow Educational and Social Welfare Society, Lucknow vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 314/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shri Brahma Prakash Singh, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 94, Vaishali Enclave, Sector-9, Indira Income Tax-2, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow Pan: Ajmps4451L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-2, Lucknow Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act On 14.03.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That Revision Proceeding Initiated U/S 263 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Learned Pr. Cit-2. Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 2. That Since Assessment Order Passed By The Ao Was Not Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue, Hence Revision Order Passed By Ld. Pr. Cit-2, Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 3. That Ld.Ao Had Examined The Issue & After Being Satisfied By The Documentary Evidences & Explanations Furnished By Appellant, Passed Assessment Order, Hence Revision Order, Cancelling The Assessment Order Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 4. That Where An Order Passed By Ao Is Subject To An Appeal That Had Been Filed, Then Commissioner Cannot Invoke Power Under Section 263 In Such Matters, Which Are Agitated In Such Appeal. Since Issue Under Appeal Before Commissioner (Appeals) & Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Same, Hence, Revision Order Passed By Commissioner Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 5. That The Appellant Seeks Permission To Modify And/Or Add Any Other Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal As The Circumstances Of The Case Might Require Or Justify.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 263

Shahbaz Mohammed Shafeeque, Malegaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Malegaon

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

ITA 2291/PUN/2025[2015 - 16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2291/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shahbaz Mohammed V The Income Tax Officer, Shafeeque, S. Ward-1, Malegaon. House No.904, Lane No.2, Malegaon City S.O., Malegaon, Nashik, Malegaon – 423203. Maharashtra. Pan: Cfppm6844A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Smt Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 28.02.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

Sachin Shantilal Khiwansara, Beed vs. Income Tax Officer, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2288/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2288/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sachin Shantilal Khiwansara, V The Income Tax Officer, Main Road, Shirur Kasar, S. Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Shirur So., Beed, Beed – 413249. Pan: Bytpk1339N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Saurabh D.Khivansara Revenue By Smt Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commisioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 17.07.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That On Facts & In Law, The Ex-Parte Order Of Ld. Cit Appeals, Nfac Is Opposed To Law & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Accordingly The Impugned Appellate Order Is Liable To Be Set Aside.

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

Kisan International Trading Fze, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Tax 2(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal field by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6152/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Kisan International Trading Fze, Vs. Acit, Circle C/O Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Int. Tax 2(1)(2), C – 179, Mansarover Garden, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 015. (Pan :Aaeck0424D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Shri Sandeep Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Order : 19.11.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi – 43 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 06.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That On Facts & In Law The Order Dated 06Th December 2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)'} & Order Dated 23Rd December 2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao") Are Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio.

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 115A(5)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 251

M/S. Shroff Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1017/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

M/S. Shroff Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1016/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 251(1)(a)Section 69A

Shubhra Kaushik, Bilaspur vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Bilaspur

ITA 563/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 563/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Arpit Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

Geeta Vijaywargiya, Indore vs. ITO WD, Tonk

Appeal is hereby dismissed being barred by limitation

ITA 1245/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jaideep Jain, Adv. (through V.C.)For Respondent: None
Section 251(1)(a)

Kiran Agrawal, Raipur vs. ITO, Dhamtari

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 655/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 655/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

14 Reels Venkatboyanapalli Jv, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 617/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.617 & 969/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2017-2018 14 Reels The Dcit, Central Venkatboyanapalli Jv, Circle-1(3), Hyderabad. Vs. Hyderabad – 500 033. Pin – 500 004. Pan Aaaaz2224L Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा /Assessee By : Mrs. K Prabhabati, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit(A), Hyderabad- 11, Hyderabad, Dated 08.02.2025 & 13.03.2025 For The Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2017-2018, Respectively.

For Appellant: Mrs. K Prabhabati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 250

Navdurga Transport Company, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 219/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A