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

25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Range -6(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3085/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

ITO 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. 25 Fps Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2798/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2798/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito, Range-6(3)(1) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Room No.524, 5Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower 400020. Parel, Mumbai-400013. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3085/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ 25Fps Media Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Range-6(3)(1) 18Th Floor, Marathon Futurex, Room No.524, 5Th Floor, Vs. N. M. Joshi Marg, Lower Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400013. 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz2076J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwala & Madhur Aggarwal Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. Ita. No.2798/Mum/2018 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -12, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y.2012-13. 3085/M/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & MadhurFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 56(1)

State Bank of India Financial Reporting & Taxation, Mumbai vs. ACIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue, therefore the same is dismissed

ITA 2309/MUM/2019[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2309/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 1996-97) Acit-2(2)(1), State Bank Of India R. No. 545, Aayakar Financial Reporting & Taxation, 3Rd Floor, बिधम/ Bhavan, M. K. Road, Corporate Centre, Madam Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacs8577K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2188/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 1996-97) Dcit-2(2)(1), State Bank Of India Financial Reporting & R. No. 545, Aayakar Taxation, 3Rd Floor, बिधम/ Bhavan, M. K. Road, Corporate Centre, Madam Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacs8577K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri C. Naresh , Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 16.12.2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh , Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar
Section 153(5)Section 200Section 201Section 244Section 244ASection 35(5)