Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.270

Section 143(1) falls under section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 270 (Assessment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 270 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 143(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 of the 12,311 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 143(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. AIMIL Ltd.
321 ITR 508 · 2010 · High Court
1,629
citing judgments

Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).

CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.
367 ITR 466 · 2014 · Supreme Court
1,558
citing judgments

Taxing statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless a clear contrary intention for retrospective application is evident. The law applicable for determining tax liability is that which stands on the first day of the assessment year, following the principle that law looks forward, not backward (lex prospicit non respicit).

Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
143 Taxmann.com 178 · 2022 · Supreme Court
1,392
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund and ESI deposited by an employer beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective special Acts are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Such disallowance can be made during processing under section 143(1).

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.
319 ITR 306 · 2009 · Supreme Court
1,344
citing judgments

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
291 ITR 500 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,030
citing judgments

For initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147, the Assessing Officer needs only prima facie material providing a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or the sufficiency/correctness of the material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice under Section 148.

CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd.
198 ITR 297 · 1992 · Supreme Court
814
citing judgments

A court's pronouncement derives its scope and color from the specific questions involved in the case, thus, due regard must always be given to the questions framed before the court when interpreting its judgment.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society
392 ITR 74 · 2017 · High Court
762
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments or surplus deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

279 ITR 331/149 Taxman 15 (Guj.); 5. CIT v. Sabari Enterprises
298 ITR 141 · 2008 · High Court
706
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI, even if deposited after the due date specified in the respective welfare statutes, are allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(va) if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return. This judgment aligns the treatment of employee contributions with employer contributions under Section 43B.

Judgments on Section 143(1)

Lalitaben Vikas Foundation, Rajkot vs. ITO Exemption WD 1, Rajkot

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

ITA 882/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.882/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Lalitaben Vikas Foundation, Income Tax Officer, C/O Charma Shilp, Ward-1(Exemption), New Aaykar Bhawan, Vs Rajkot-360 001 Rajkot-360 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Aaatl2672 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri G.R. Sanghavi, Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. Arjunlal Saini Am; Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017- 18, Is Directed Against Order Passed By Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Mumbai, Vide Order Dated 04.10.2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bangalore/Assessing Officer Dated 09.03.2019 U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset Itself, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Assailed The Impugned Order By Contending That The Assessee Could Not Represent His Case Before Ld. Cit(A) & The Order Being An Ex-Parte Order, Stood Vitiated On Account Of Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee, Submitted That There Was Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) By 44 Days. The Assessee Has Explained The Reasons Of Such Delay & Sufficient Cause For Such Delay, Stating That Assessment Order Itself Was Not Received On Time

For Appellant: Shri G.R. Sanghavi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)

Ravindra Jagannath Saindane, Mumbai vs. Asst/Dy, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 207/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 207/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Ravindra Jagannath Saindane Asst./Dy. Cit बनाम/ B2/8/13 Circle-2(1)(1) V/S. Sector-16 Vadodara Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 703 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahfps 2405 R (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra C. Mehta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Dated 12/12/2024 Passed For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld Addl Jcit A Grossly Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Without Adjudicating The Preliminary Issue Raised Regarding The Violation Of Statutory Provision Of Sec 143 1 1 A Of The Income Tax Act 1961 The Act In The Form Of Non Issue & Service Of The Notice By The Ld Ao Us 143 1 A Of The Act Before Making The Adjustment Of Rs. 1025170. Ravindra Jagannath Saindane Vs.Asst.Dy.Cit Cir-2(1)(1), Vadodara Asst. Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra C. Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 143Section 143(1)

Singatala Society for Education Relief and Vocational Excellence, Malda vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2697/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2697/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Singatala Society For Education Vs Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru Relief & Vocational Excellence K.J.Sanyal Road, Malda-732101 Pan No. :Aaabs 1601 H (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.11.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1070548583(1), For The Assessment Year 2020-2021. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit- Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. On Perusal Of The Assessment Order As Well As The Appellate Order, We Found That The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.143(1) Of The Act Issued By The Cpc Without Issuing A Show Cause Notice. 4. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld.Cit-Dr Was Asked To Show The Show Cause Notice Issued As Per The Proviso To Section 143(1) Of The Act Before Issuance Of The Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Act. The Cit-Dr Was Unable To Show The Copy Of The Show Cause Notice As Required Under The First

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)