Section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.360

Section 251(2) 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(2) is CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (297 CTR 614), cited in 659 of the 577 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 251(2)

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.

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.

Income Tax-III, Pune v. Rajasthan & Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona
89 Taxmann.com 127 · 2018 · Supreme Court
130
citing judgments

The claim of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act for assets used by charitable trusts is permissible, affirming the Bombay High Court's view that such a claim does not amount to a 'double benefit'.

Ajji Basha v. CIT
111 Taxmann.com 348 · 2019 · High Court
55
citing judgments

The Commissioner (Appeals) must pass a speaking order on merits, considering the grounds raised in the assessee's appeal. They cannot dispose of an appeal by simply stating the Assessing Officer's order is self-speaking and requires no interference.

Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT
132 ITR 559 · 1981 · Supreme Court
39
citing judgments

A reserve set apart to meet a known liability is not a reserve for the purposes of accounting, but rather a provision for a liability. This means it cannot be considered a reserve for tax purposes.

CIT v. Nirbheram Deluram
91 Taxmann 181 · 1997 · Supreme Court
35
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) can make enhancements to an assessment during appellate proceedings, provided such enhancements do not amount to introducing an entirely new head of income.

Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industries, New Delhi
130 ITR 186 · 1981 · Supreme Court
22
citing judgments

Activities are not considered to be for profit if their dominant purpose is the promotion, protection, and development of trade, commerce, and industry, even if they involve income-generating activities like conducting trade fairs or collecting fees.

Saheli Synthetics (P) Ltd. v. CIT
302 ITR 126 · 2008 · High Court
22
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot enhance income beyond what was originally assessed when giving effect to a set-aside order, unless specifically directed by the appellate authority. The powers of an appellate authority are confined to the subject matter of the appeal.

DIT v. Vishwa Jagriti Mission
262 CTR 558 · 2013 · High Court
19
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on capital assets for charitable trusts even if expenditure was allowed as deduction, as long as it doesn't amount to double deduction. The principles of commercial accountancy apply when computing business income.

CIT v. Girish Mohan Ganeriwala
200 CTR 426 · High Court
11
citing judgments

A liability for interest, even if accrued during the year, is not deductible unless it is certain and the amount is ascertainable in that assessment year.

Judgments on Section 251(2)

M/S. Laxmi Narayan Jewellery, Balasore vs. ITO, Ward-2, Balasore

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 394/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.394/Ctk/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) M/S Laxmi Narayan Jewellery, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Balasore Vivekananda Marg, District- Balasore, Odisha-756001 Pan No. : Aabfl 7440 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhro Das, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 30.08.2018 For The A.Y.2013-2014, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That, The Order Passed By The Learned C.I.T.(A) Is Not Just & Proper Under The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, As Such, The Same Is Liable To Be Quashed In The Interest Of Justice. 2. For That, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Have Deleted The Entire Addition Of Rs. 1,30,26,864.00 Made By The Learned A.O. Treating The Same As Undisclosed Stock Instead Of Reducing It To Rs.47,19,960.00. The Findings Given By The Learned C.I.T.(A) Being Perverse & Contrary To The Facts On Record, Consequential Addition Sustained By Him Needs To Be Deleted In The Interest Of Justice. 3. For That, When The Closing Stock As Alleged By The Learned A.O. Do Not Belong To The Assessment Year 2013-14, The Learned C.I.T.(A) Should Have Deleted The Entire Addition Instead Of Reducing It To Rs.47,19,960.00 In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhro Das, DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 251(2)