Section 251 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.360

Section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is CIT v. Sardari Lal & Co. (251 ITR 864), cited in 240 of the 1,124 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 251

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.

CIT v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria
66 ITR 443 · 1967 · Supreme Court
239
citing judgments

The appellate authority cannot enhance an assessment by considering a source of income that was not examined by the Assessing Officer. The scope of appellate power is limited to the subject matter considered by the Assessing Officer.

Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India
6 SCC 613 · 2012 · Supreme Court
216
citing judgments

Tax planning is legitimate only if it is within the framework of law. Colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning, and it is wrong to encourage avoiding tax through dubious methods.

CIT v. Nirbheram Daluram
224 ITR 610 · 1997 · Supreme Court
141
citing judgments

The appellate authority, while hearing an appeal, possesses all the powers that the original assessing authority had, unless restricted by statute. This means the appellate authority can modify an assessment order on an additional ground not raised before the assessing officer.

ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das
52 ITR 335 · 1964 · Supreme Court
100
citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarified that an appellate authority's 'finding' must be essential for disposing of the appeal for the relevant assessment year, not an incidental observation about another year's income. Appellate authorities cannot issue directions on matters not directly arising in the appeal for the specific assessment year, especially regarding escaped income, which has separate statutory mechanisms.

Peass Industrial Engineers (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
90 Taxmann 541 · 1997 · Supreme Court
79
citing judgments
CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi
328 ITR 604 · 2010 · High Court
58
citing judgments

The primary burden of proof for concealment of income lies with the revenue, and a DVO valuation report can only be relied upon after the revenue has discharged this initial burden.

India Trade Promotion Organisation v. CIT
361 ITR 646 · 2014 · High Court
54
citing judgments

When a refund is due to an assessee under Section 244A, the amount must first be adjusted towards the interest payable on such refund, with the balance then adjusted against the tax amount refundable. This follows the principle of Section 140A(1) and means "any amount" in Section 244A includes accrued interest.

CIT v. Imperial Chemical Industries (I) Pvt Ltd.
74 ITR 17 · 1969 · Supreme Court
53
citing judgments

The assessee bears the onus to prove the veracity of claimed expenses. Income diverted by an overriding obligation before it is earned does not form part of the assessee's total income.

(4) ClT v. Manoj Jain
287 ITR 285 · 2006 · High Court
48
citing judgments

A District Valuation Officer (DVO) report, by itself, is not sufficient incriminating evidence to make additions for unexplained investments in a block assessment under Section 158BC. The revenue bears the primary burden of proof to establish undisclosed income, and a DVO opinion alone is also insufficient information for reopening an assessment under Section 147.

Judgments on Section 251

Lakshachandi Apartment Abcd Co Operative Housing Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 41 (4)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3190/MUM/2026[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2023-24 Lakshachandi Apartment Income Tax Officer, Abcd Co Operative Housing Ward 41 (4)(2), Society, 854 B, Kautilya Bhavan, Cts No. 156 A 9 C1 243, Vs. C41-43, Avenue 3, G Block Lakshachandi Apartments Abcd Bkc, Bandra Kurla Chs, Film City Road, Goregaon, Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400063. Mumbai, Maharashtra - Pan – Aaaal2732P 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Ms. Rashmikant Modi Revenue By : Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.07.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.02.2026, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Lucknow (In Short, “Ld. Commissioner”), U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”), For The A.Y. 2023-24. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee’S Claim For Deduction Of Rs.9,07,260/- U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act Has Been Denied By The Ao & The Ld. Commissioner, On Account Of A Delay Of Just One Day, In Filing The Return Of Income. 2 Lakshachandi Apartment Abcd Co Operative Housing Society 3. We Observe From The Impugned Order That The Ld. Commissioner Refers To Cbdt Circular No. 14/2024 Dated 30.10.2024, Whereby The Applicability Of Cbdt Circular No. 13/2023 Dated 26.07.2023 Has Been Extended To The A.Y. 2023-24 & Holds That, In View Of The Provisions Of Section 119(2)(B) Of The Act, The Appellate Authority Does Not Have The Power To Condone The Delay In Filing The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Ms. Rashmikant ModiFor Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, SR. D.R
Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)