Tribunal held that  once the first appellate authority is having the co-terminus powers with that of the AO, then the powers of the CIT(A) under s. 251(1)(a) are wide enough to consider any other issue which comes to his knowledge during the course of appellate proceedings, but such issues should be emanating either from the assessment order or from the return of income filed by the assessee. In the present case, the AO considered the increase in the capital accounts of partners on account of revaluation of the assets held by the assessee-firm under s. 68 as unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) having noticed the fact invoked the provisions of s. 45(4). Therefore, the powers exercised by the CIT(A) cannot be said to be beyond the scope of provisions of s. 251(1). What was considered by the CIT(A) is the very same income which arose out of the revaluation of the asset held by the firm and the same has been assessed under proper provisions of section and as per facts available on record. Followed CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC). (AY. 2018-19)