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)

Shah Hasan, Uttar Pradesh vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 798/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.798/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2012-13) Shah Hasan, 157, Mushtarak Miranpur, Jansath, Uttar Pradesh 251315 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Airph-7471-F बनाम Vs. National Faceless Appeal Center, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Delhi 110001 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 20/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 19.10.2023, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 408 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay In Filing Of Appeal Supported By An Affidavit. After Perusing The Application For Condonation Of Delay, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Present Appeal Is Un-Intentional & Was For The Reasons Stated In The Application

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Bhupesh Ravinder Datt Sharma, Australia vs. ITO, Ward- 2(85), Delhi

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

ITA 1306/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1306/िद"ी/2025(िन.व. 2016-17) Bhupesh Ravinder Datt Sharma, 16A, Fisher Street, Victoria, Australia 314500 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Augps-4400-A बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-28(5), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : None "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 20/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 20/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 19.12.2024, For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Filed Return Of Income U/S. 139 Of The Income Tax Act,1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Impugned Assessment Year Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,11,370/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny, Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act Dated 14.07.2017 Was Issued To The Assessee. Despite Service Of Aforesaid Notice, The Assessee Failed To Respond To The Same. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 5Section 68

Meditation Properties Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-16(3), New Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9394/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.9394/िद"ी/2019(िन.व. 2015-16) Meditation Properties P. Ltd., Flat No. 10, C-1/2, Model Town, New Delhi 110009 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaacm-1194-N बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal-6, Laxmi Nagar, District Centre, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110092 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Parveen Kumar, Executive Employee "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/05/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19/05/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 27.09.2019, For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Shri Parveen Kumar, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That The Short Issue In Appeal Is That The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny For The Following Reasons: “(I) There Is A Large Difference In The Opening Stock Of The Current Year & The Closing Stock Of Previous Year In P&L Account As Per Return Of Income; &

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar, Executive EmployeeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

Kashinath Tapuriah, Kolkata vs. ACIT- CC - 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 5008/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Kashinath Tapuriah Acit-Cc-2, Mumbai 9, Rowdown Street, Udyanchal Bldg., Flat No. 20, 5Th Floor, Kolkata, Vs. Karnataka – 700017. Pan/Gir No. Abupt5665K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None : Shri. P. D. Chougule, Sr. Dr. Respondent By : 19.02.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 47, Mumbai (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2011-12. 2. As There Was No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee Inspite Of Several Opportunities, We Hereby Proceed To Dispose Off This Appeal By Hearing The Learned Departmental Representative (‘Ld. Dr’ For Short) & On Perusal Of The Materials Available On Record. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.41,345 Business Expenditure. Kashinath Tapuriah

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 19.02.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Fazal Husain, Nand Nagri vs. ITO, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5633/DEL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Fazal Husain, Vs Ito, E-1/424, Nand Nagri, Ward 59(7), Delhi – 110 093. Delhi. Pan: Absph4524R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Fazal Husain (Assessee In Person) Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 Order Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal By The Appellant Assessee Is Against The Order Dated 07.10.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In Appeal Arising Out Of The Order Dated 09.12.2019 U/S 143(1) Of The Act Of The Ito, Ward-59(7), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Ao’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee E-Filed The Return Of Income On 09.02.2018 Declaring An Income Of Rs.3,81,580/-. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason Of Verifying The Cash Deposit During The Demonetization Period. Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued. Notices U/S 142(1) Of The Act Along With Questionnaire Were Issued To The Assessee To Draw Details. However, The Assessee Did Not File Any Reply. As Per Sft Reported, The Assessee Deposited A Cash Of Rs.58,80,600/- In His Bank Account During The Demonetization Period, I.E., From 09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016. The Appellant- Assessee Was Given Final Show Cause Notice Dated 03.12.2019. The Assessee Neither Appeared Nor Filed Any Documents. On Completion Of Proceedings, The Ld. Ao, Vide Order Dated 9Th December, 2019, Made Additions Of Rs.58,80,600/- & Rs.1,48,500. Against This Order Dated 09.12.2019, The Appellant Assessee Filed Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A), Which Was Dismissed.

For Appellant: Shri Fazal Husain (Assessee in person)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250