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)

Green Valley Infracity Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Noida

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2110/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Green Valley Infracity Vs. Ito, Ward 1(4), Pvt. Ltd., Noida Noida, C/O Nitesh Singh, C-190, Sector-49, Noida Uttar Pradesh -201 301 (Pan: Aafcp8389P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Kumar Tyagi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

M/S. Total Integrated Design (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4953/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.K. Billaiya[A.Y 2006-07]

For Appellant: Ms. Gunjan Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 251(2)

Sant Electr4Icals, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-62(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7600/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prdeep Singh Gautuam, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 251(2)

Vinayak Education Society, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Noida

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

ITA 3270/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kamal Gupta, CA & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 251Section 56

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat 3 vs. Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria

TAXAP/803/2019HC Gujarat10 Feb 2020

Bench: The Tribunal For The Assessment Year 2009­10. 2 The Revenue Has Proposed The Following Question As Substantial Question Of Law In Tax Appeal No.803 Of 2019 Out Of Appeal Filed By Assessee Before The Tribunal Being Ita No.1615/Ahd/2014: “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Page 1 Of 13

Section 110Section 133ASection 260ASection 292CSection 69C

Mesers S.B Global, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Offier Ward 4 (5), Amritsar

ITA 197/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, (D.R.)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(b)

Chetan Kanubhai Desai, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 22(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4353/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodshri Chetan Kanubhai Desai Assistant Commissioner Of 34, Aurovilla, St. Andrews Road, Income Tax, Range-22(1), Vs. Santacruz (West), Piramal Chambers, Mumbai – 400054 Mumbai – 400 012 Pan – Aaapd8549F

For Appellant: Shri Milin Bakhai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Padmapani Bora, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Hibiscus Communications Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 896/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodhibiscus Communcations Pvt. Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax-15(2)(1) B-36/37, Indraprastha Building, Room No. 357, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Athavale, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh Daia, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

V. Ravikumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 767/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. V. Ravikumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.139, Balaji Layout, Ward – 3(2)(4), Subramanyapura Post, Bengaluru. Opp. Simhadri Layout, Bengaluru – 560 085. Pan : Bbepr 3801 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. Guruswamy, Itp Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel To Department Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2020 O R D E R This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A)-3, Bangalore Dated 26.02.2019 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- 1. The Impugned Appellate Order Dated: 26-02-2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bangalore-3 Is Opposed To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding A Sum Of Rs. I,39.817/-As Income Being 8% On The Understated Turnover Of Rs. 17,47,712/- Which Resulted In Enhancement Of Assessment Without Issuing A Notice U/S. 251(2) Of The Act. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.10,29,000/- Being The Cash Deposited Into The Bank Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. Page 2 Of 6 4. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 25,65,000/- As Unexplained Investment Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 5. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend & Delete Any Of The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing

For Appellant: Shri. H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate
Section 251(2)Section 8O

Late Shri D.K. Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 5350/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251(2)Section 263Section 57

Smt.Sandhya T.N., Tiptur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Tiptur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2346/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Soumya K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel to Dept
Section 251(2)

K.Mohammed Abdullah, Thanjavur vs. ITO, Thanjavur

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

ITA 1343/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1343/Chny/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Respondent: 02.12.2019
Section 251(2)

Pneumax Pneumatic India P.Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Noida

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

ITA 4203/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 251(2)Section 271

Kalyanji Walji Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4495/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanm/S Kalyanji Walji Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer-15(2)(1) Plot No. A-200, Ttc, Industrial Area, Mumbai, Vs. Midc, Khanne, Off. Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai – 400 710 Pan – Aaack0378A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Bhoopati, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)Section 68

Satna Diocesab Society, Satna vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemption), Raipur

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 124/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.124/Nag/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.R. RaoFor Respondent: ShriG.N. Singh
Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 251(2)

Mr. Ashok Bathla, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 799/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate &
Section 153ASection 234ASection 251(2)

Mr. Ashok Bathla, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 793/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate &
Section 153ASection 234ASection 251(2)

Madhan Kumar J, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)V, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1189/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Madhan Kumar J, Prop: Sri Chakravarthy Traders, The Income Tax Sacred Heard Road, Officer, Behind St. Anthony’S Church, Vs. Ward – 8 (1), Tc Palya, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 036. Pan: Adxpm3872C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Krishnaswamy, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2019

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT (DR)

Indo Office Solutions (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3176/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 132Section 133Section 147Section 148

Sanjay Shantilal Gundecha, Ahmednagar vs. ` Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

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

ITA 76/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.76/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sanjay Shantilal Gundecha, Prop: S.S. Construction, Manik Nagar, Ahmednagar-414001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aanpg5756C बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle, ……""यथ" / Respondent Ahmednagar. Assessee By : Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By : Shri Swapnil Patil सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Pune Dated 16.09.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “(1) On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Enhancing The Income Of The Appellant To Rs. 95,90,109 As Against The Income Of Rs. 67,41,080 Assessed By The Ld Ao & Rs.34,05,990 Returned By The Appellant. (2) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Issuing Enhancement Notice U/S 251(2) Of The It Act When The Of The Case Do Not Justify Any Such Enhancement. (3) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (A) In Not Accepting The Returned Income Of The Appellant & In Not Deleting The Various Additions Made By Ld Ao. (4) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Applying A G.P. Of 8% On The Total Receipts Including The Sub-Contractual Receipts Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Patil
Section 234Section 251(2)