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)

Santosh Kumar Sinha, Purnia vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 269/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.268 & 269/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Santosh Kumar Sinha…….………………. ……………..…..........……….Appellant S/O Late Satya Narayan Lal, Carriers Colony, Sakti Nagar, Purnia, Bihar – 854301. [Pan: Awhps7019N] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…………..……. ……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri K. P. Jalan, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 09, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 31.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.268/Pat/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts.

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

Santosh Kumar Sinha, Purnia vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna

In the result, both the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 268/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.268 & 269/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Santosh Kumar Sinha…….………………. ……………..…..........……….Appellant S/O Late Satya Narayan Lal, Carriers Colony, Sakti Nagar, Purnia, Bihar – 854301. [Pan: Awhps7019N] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna…………..……. ……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri K. P. Jalan, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 09, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 31.03.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.268/Pat/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts.

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

Kasiraj Rengappa, Tamilnadu vs. ITO, Ward Int. Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Kasiraj Rengappa Vs Ito, 6313, Clover Hill Drive, Ward-1(1)(1) San Jose Foreign, International Taxation, United States Of America Or Civic Centre, Minto Road, [Indian Address] - 3/226, New Delhi-110002. Navaneethkrishnapuram Sevlkulam, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu-627754. Pan-Brjpr2094A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri T.Vasudevan, Adv. (Through Vc) Respondent By Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.12.2021 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi-42 [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-42/10502/2019-20 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 26.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Nri & Earned Income From Interest Only During The Year & Filed His Return Of Income On 17.03.2018, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 85,320/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Acton 24.09.2018. Thereafter Notices Were Issued U/S 142(1) In Response To Which Assessee Filed Reply From Time To Time. The Ao Observed That Assessee Deposited Cash In Sbn During Demonetization Period From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 Into His Bank Account With State Bank Of India, Nro Account No.33350651335 Of Inr 22,50,000/-. After Considering The Submission Filed, Ao Passed The Order On 26.12.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Inr 23,35,320/-.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

Rapolu Kavitha, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 775/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.772/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2019-20) 1. Shri Sunil Kumar Mukka, Warangal. Pan: Bhrpm0791F Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.775/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2019-20) 2. Ms. Rapolu Kavitha, Hyderabad. Pan: Agppr3343A (Appellant) Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessees By: Shri C. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : These Appeals Are Filed By Shri Sunil Kumar Mukka & Ms. Rapolu Kavitha ("The Assessees”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad-12 (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Both Dated 05.03.2025 For The A.Y. 2019-20. Since The Grounds Raised By The Assessees Are Identical, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69