Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.270

Section 143(2) 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(2) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 of the 13,613 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 143(2)

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
193 ITR 321 · 1992 · Supreme Court
1,695
citing judgments

The principle of consistency applies in tax matters, meaning a fundamental aspect found to be true in one assessment year should not be changed in a subsequent year if the order was not challenged.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
402 ITR 640 · 2018 · Supreme Court
1,596
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT
378 ITR 33 · 2015 · High Court
1,569
citing judgments

A disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant previous year.

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).

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth
356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court
1,465
citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported bogus purchases.

Judgments on Section 143(2)

Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2116/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2022-23 Shree Bhaidyanath Ayurved Bhawan P Ltd.………………….….…….……Appellant Bhaidyanath Bhawan, 1, Gupta Lane, Beadon Street, S O Kolkata - 6. [Pan: Aaecs5408D] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata..………………………..………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M Surana, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sanat Kr. Raha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.09.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This Case, The Assessee Company 2. Is Engaged In Ayurvedic Knowhow & Manufacturing Of Ayurvedic Medicines & Carrying On Its Business From 1917. The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income On 04.11.2022 At A Total Income Of Rs.35,44,36,870/- The Case Was Then Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass In Order To Verify The Following Issues-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2071/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 69

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2070/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 69

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2069/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 69

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2067/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 69

Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC - 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2066/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2066 To 2071/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23 Ishtiyaque Ahmed……...……………..………………….……….……….……Appellant 55, Narkeldanga North Road, Narkeldanga, Kol-11.. [Pan: Ajxpa4337L] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata.……….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Subrata Aich, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”]. Ita Nos.2066 To 2068/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To The Quantum Additions & Ita Nos.2069 To 2071/Kol/2025 Are Pertaining To Levying Of Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since The Issues Involved In All The Appeals Are Interconnected & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

Section 132ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 69

Sridharpur Co-Operative Bank, Burdhaman vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2106/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.2106/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sridharpur Co-Operative Bank …………………................................……….…Appellant Vill & Po. Hat Sridharpur, Memari-I, Dist- Bardhaman, W.B. – 713146. [Pan: Aacas8623A] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Burdwan…..….………………….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. Goenka & S. Goenka, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2020–21, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Sustained The Disallowance Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Deduction Claimed By The Assessee Under Section 80P Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Registered Under The West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act. For The Relevant Assessment Year, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Nil Taxable Income After Claiming Deduction Of ₹1,99,10,459 Under Section 80P Of The Act. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Debashis Das, Kolkata vs. ACIT-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 947/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.947/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Debashis Das………………………………………................................……….…Appellant Uttara Tritiya Housing Complex, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Near City Center-2, W.B– 700156. [Pan: Aixpd81639Q] Vs. Acit, International Taxaion-1(1), Kolkata ..L..….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi For Assessment Year 2015–16. The Ld. Cit(A) Sustained The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Salary Income Earned By The Assessee During His Short-Term Foreign Assignment In The Philippines. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 366 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 5(2)(b)Section 6(1)