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)

Hussain Theparambil Faisal, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 520/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Hussain Theparambil Faizal .......... Appellant Theparambil, Chalingadu, Kaipamangalam Thrissur 680681 [Pan: Acvpf5761G] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad [Cit(A)] Dated 23.12.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is An Individual. No Return Of Income Under The Provisions Of Section 139(1) Of The The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Filed By The Appellant For Ay 2017-18. However, Based On The Information That The Appellant Made Cash Deposit In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During Demonetisation Period, The Ito, Ward 2(1), Thrissur (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Issued A Notice U/S. 142(1) Of The Act Calling Upon The Appellant To 2 Hussain Theparambil Faizal File Return Of Income. The Appellant Neither Complied With The Notice U/S. 142(1) Nor The Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act. In The Circumstances, The Ao Proceeded With Making Best Judgement Assessment By Making Addition Of The Cash Deposits Made During The Demonetisation Period As Unexplained Money Of The Appellant Vide Order Dated 29.12.2019 Passed U/S. 144 Of The Act.

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

Anilkumar Gopinathannair, Palakkad vs. ITO Ward 1, Tps, Palakkad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 519/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anilkumar Gopinathan Nair .......... Appellant Sree Lakshmi, Hill View Nagar, Kanjikode Palakkad 678621 [Pan: Aiapg3415B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tps, Palakkad.......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Padmanathan K.V. Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 20.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Wholesale Distributor Of Fly Ash To Different Cement Manufacturing Companies. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 28.01.12018 Declaring Income Of Rs. 10,63,34070/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, Palakkad (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 21.12.2019 Passed U/S. 143(1) Of 2 Anilkumar Gopinathan Nair The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Accepting The Returned Income. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issuing Notices U/S. 143(2) Of The Act On 05.08.2019 & 05.09.2019. On Verification It Was Found That The Appellant Made Cash Deposit Of Rs. 64,39,500/- Into The Bank Account Out Of Which A Sum Of Rs. 63,83,000/- Was Made In Specified Bank Notes (Sbn) During Demonetisation Period. Accordingly, The Ao Came To A Finding That The Appellant Could Deposit Only Rs. 32,25,000/- & The Balance Of Rs. 32,14,500/- Was Treated As Unexplained Deposit & Was Assessed To Tax U/S. 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.VFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Trinity Vintrade Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1001/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1001/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata ………………...………………..….……….Appellant Vs. Trinity Vintrade Pvt. Ltd.………..........................…….........……...…..…..Respondent 2Nd Floor, Room No.22, 22 Canning Street, Kol-1. [Pan: Aadct2156P] Appearances By: Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 11, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 26.12.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013–14. 2. At The Outset, We Note That There Is A Delay Of 69 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Citing Reasonable Cause For The Belated Filing. We, After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, Satisfy That The Revenue Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause In Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication On Merits. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013–14 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.70,440/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act For The Reason That A Sum Of Rs.8,00,056/- Was Transferred From One M/S Purayita Vanija Pvt. Ltd. To The Assessee’S Bank Account During The Year & Found That The Alleged

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

ITA 955/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Pcit (Central)-2, Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Pcit (Central)-2, Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore - 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pcit (Central)-2, Vs. Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) & Shri. S.Anatharaman, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Bipin C.N, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.08.2025 :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)