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)

Suresh Kumar Somani, Malkangiri vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Berhampur

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

ITA 55/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumarita No.55 /Ctk/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Suresh Kumar Somani…………………………………................……….……Appellant Motu Road, Korukonda B.O, Alur, Malkangiri (Odisha), Odissa - 764045.. [Pan: Acxps8005Q] Vs. Acit, Berhampur………....………..…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri R. B. Doshi, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 21, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 228 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 143(2)Section 250Section 40A(3)

Sri Hari Prasad Agarwal, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 46(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1617/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1617/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Sri Hari Prasad Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-46(1), Kolkata Salarpuria Jajodia @ Co.7, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata West Bengal-700072 Pan No. :Adapa 9125 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 20.05.2025 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Only Ground Argued By The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee With Regard To Confirmation Of Addition By The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Made By The Ao U/S.68 Of The Act On Account Of Sale Proceeds Received By The Assessee On Sale Of Shares. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Ay 2015-16 Declaring Total Income Of Rs 4,29,970. The Assessee In Pursuance To Notice U/S.143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Along With Questionnaire Submitted Required Details & Documents As Sought By The Assessing Officer (Ao). During The Fy 2014-15 The Assessee Sold Quoted

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

Sri Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1361/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1361/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Sri Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata C/O M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co 7, Cr.Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata West Bengal-700072 Pan No. :Adrpg 5357 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sujay Sen, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-27, Dated 05.03.2025 Passed For Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 24 Days. Though The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Condonation Application Nor Any Affidavit, However, Looking To The Facts Of The Case & The Issue Involved Therein, I Am Of The View That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Deserves To Be Condoned, Which Has Also Not Been Objected By The Ld. Sr. Dr. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Sole Issue Involved In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is With Regard To Addition Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Alleged Undisclosed Jewellery. 4. Facts In Brief Are That Are That The Assessee Had Filed Original Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Relevant

For Appellant: Shri Sujay Sen, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69B