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)

Nardeep Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Dasuya

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 637/ASR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 637/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Nardeep Singh Ito बनाम/ 104, Vill Baghiarhi, Ward Dasuya Tehsil Dasuya, Hoshiarpur Punjab-144203 Vs. Punjab-144203 "ायी लेखा सं./Pan. Ckbps-0506-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Vijh (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Charan Dass (Addl. Cit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Vijh (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass (Addl. CIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)

Aryavart Bank, Lucknow vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 800/LKW/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, Vs. Dcit-Range 1, (Successor To Erstwhile Allahabad U.P. Lucknow Gramin Bank), Head Office, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Nbcc Commercial Complex, Vardan Khand, Gomti Nagar Extension, Lucknow Pan: Aaaju0568R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. C. Naresh, Fca Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A) Setting Aside The Orders Of The Ld. Assessing Officer That Were Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 On 30.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Not Granting Opportunity To The Appellant Bank To Present The Case Through Video Conferencing As Specified Under Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2020 Provided U/S. 250(68) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Be Directed To Grant Personal Hearing Through Video Conferencing In The Interest Of Justice. Without Prejudice To The Above 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Proviso To Section 251(1)(A) & Setting Aside The Order To Ao Without Appreciating That The Order Was Not Passed U/S 144. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Din Was Issued In The Name Of Non-Existing Entity & Hence The Order Passed Is Invalid. Without Prejudice To The Above

For Appellant: Sh. C. Naresh, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 244ASection 250(68)Section 251(1)(a)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

Bhagwant Kaur, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 122/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal. C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148rSection 251(1)(a)Section 69

Sant Harkewal Shikshan Samiti, Ambikapur, Surguja vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 570/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.570/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sant Harkewal Shikshan Samiti, Namna Kala, Surguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, 497001 Pan: Aaias1529F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Mr. G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR
Section 147rSection 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Mercantile Co Op Bank Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal file by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 10/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Uday Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Pritesh Shah, AR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

Mukul Hasteer, Karnal vs. ITO Ward-1, Karnal

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 96/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

Manoj Kumar Jain (Hfu), Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2), Bhilai, Durg

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

ITA 240/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.240/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manoj Kumar Jain (Huf) Aapapura, Bhoipara, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan: Aalhm0106J

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Cherukuri Veeraju, Rajahmundry vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

ITA 465/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.465/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Cherukuri Veeraju, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Rajahmundry. Of Income Tax, Pan:Abxpc6760H Circle-1, Rajahmundry. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 13/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 27/05/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac), Delhi Under Section 271D Of The 2 Cherukuri Veeraju Vs. Dcit

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271D

Late Urmila Ushakant Sheth Through Legal Heir Mrs. Daksha Sanghavi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 970/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: the learned CIT(A), NFAC on the same issue and also mentioned the same in the written submissions filed.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: 03.04.2025
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 153(3)Section 250Section 50C

Mohammed Rauf Farook Khan, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 4015/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhukeshwar Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri,(Sr. AR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 196/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 196/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shyamprasad Reddy Vs. Dcit, Gaddam, Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aetpg9117P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)- 11, Hyderabad, Dated 02/02/2004, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 12/12/2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 Shyamprasad Reddy Gaddam Vs. Dcit

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

Ojasvi Media Matrix Private Limited, Indore vs. AO, NFAC Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5210/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryojasvi Media Matrix Pvt. Assessing Officer, Nfac, Ltd., 852, Sudama Nagar, Delhi. Vs. Opp. Jain Mandir, Indore (Mp) Pan: Aabco 1930 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pitamber Kumar, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

Runa Vishal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3792/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryruna Vishal Shah, Block Ito, Ward-22(3)(2), No.3, Veer Building, Mumbai. Tagore Road, Santacruz Vs. (W), Mumbai. Pan: Bdcps 8211 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68Section 69C

Inner Chef Private Ltd, Gurugram vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2184/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 40Section 40aSection 68

Amrendra Pratap Singh, Varanasi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 3(1), Gaya

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

ITA 101/PAT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 69A

Sanjay Jayantilal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 79/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-2015 Sanjay Jayantilal Shah Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 202/A, Shivalik 10 Vs. Vejalpur Opp: Sbi Zonal Office Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aktps 8891 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Year 2014–15, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Assessing Officer Or Ao"].

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

Nanjappa Shivaprasad, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for the A

ITA 2073/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)

Nanjappa Shivaprasad, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for the A

ITA 2072/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)

Samrat Wires Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid terms

ITA 5154/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysamrat Wires Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-13(1) Mumbai. 303 Elphinstone House 17, Marzban Road Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400 001

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agiwal, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Pitamber Kumar, Ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

Late Jyoti Shashikant Golatkar Thourgh Lr Mrujesh Shashikant Golatkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4201/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarlate Jyoti Shashikant V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Golatkar (Through Legal Heir, बनाम 30(1)(5), Kautilya Bhavan, Sri Mrugesh Shashikant Golatkar) C–41 To C-43, G-Block, 2B/35 Baf Hira Nagar, Bandra Kurla Complex, Kharodi (Marve Road), Malad Bandra (East), Mumbai – West, Mumbai – 400 095, 400051, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafpg5675C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bikash Kumar Bogi a/w Ms. Mugda DashoraFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 69A