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)

Deesha Trade Endeavours Pvt Ltd, Siliguri vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Siliguri

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

ITA 1113/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1113/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Deesha Trade Endeavours Pvt. Ltd….…………………....Appellant Dhruvatara, Opp Bsnl Residential Complex, Sukanta Sarani, New Milan Pally, Siliguri-734005. [Pan: Aabcd8122A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Siliguri…………..…..…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Adv., Rajib Mukherjee, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 24, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 24, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.03.2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018–19 Declaring Total Income Of ₹6,68,970. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Accordingly, Notice Under Section 143(2) Was Issued. During The Course Of Assessment, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Had Received Unsecured Loan Aggregating ₹5,43,50,000 In Its Books Of Accounts & There Was Also Underreporting Of Income To The Extent Of ₹2,500. Considering The Lack Of Satisfactory Explanation, The Ao Completed The Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act On 23.04.2021, Assessing The Total

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur vs. Dc/Ac Circle-2, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 186/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.186/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank……….....…..…………………....Appellant Sharma Complex, Ramna Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur, Bihar – 842002. [Pan: Aaaju0238J] Vs. Dc/Ac, Circle-2, Muzaffarpur.……….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Patna ["Cit(A)"] For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Loss Of Rs.47,24,77,982. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Manual Selection Criteria During The Financial Year 2017-18. Accordingly, Statutory Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Were Issued & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. In Response, The Assessee Appeared & Made Certain Submissions. However, The Assessing Officer Made The Following Additions/Disallowances: Rs.16,84,20,016: Provision For Npa.

Section 36(1)(va)

Electromechanical Trading Pvt. Ltd., Fortuna Tower vs. ITO 5(3), Aayakar Bhawan

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

ITA 1066/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1066/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Electromechanical Trading Pvt. Ltd. …………………....Appellant 23A, Ns Road, 11Th Floor, Room No.53, Kol-1. [Pan: Adcpa8526G] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(3), Kolkata……..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Vijay Kr. Singhal, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.02.2024 Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 358 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Petition Explaining The Reasons Or Such Delay. After Considering The Submissions & Materials On Record, We Are Satisfied That There Was Reasonable Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Said Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.50,050/- Which Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice Under

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 144Section 250Section 68

Ganesh Mahato, Durgapur, South Parganas vs. Assistant Commission of Income Tax Circle 26(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, with cost of Rs

ITA 182/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.182/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ganesh Mahato…...……………………..…………………....Appellant Vill. Durgapur, Po- Jaynagar, Majilpur, South 24 Parganas-743337. [Pan: Bgppm6996K] Vs. Acit, Circle-26(1), Kolkata ……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 23, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.12.2023 Passed By The Nfac [In Short Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,76,470/-. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny. Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued But She Assessee Remained Non-Compliant. The Assessing Officer Observed That Total Deposits In The Assessee'S Bank Accounts With Bank During The Period April 2016 To March 2017 Amounted To Rs.2,00,80,900, Whereas The Assessee Had Shown Only Rs.90,20,200 As Sales. The Excess Deposit Of Rs.1,10,60,700 Was Treated As Unexplained Money Under Section 69A & Added To The Income Of The Assessee.

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -3(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 20/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.17, 18, 19 & 20/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of New No. 40 (Old No. 23), Sarojini Income Tax, Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 3(1) Chennai. [Pan:Aacck4534C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate & Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 19/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.17, 18, 19 & 20/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Kathir Kaman Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of New No. 40 (Old No. 23), Sarojini Income Tax, Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle 3(1) Chennai. [Pan:Aacck4534C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate & Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C