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)

Priya Kant Singh, Lucknow vs. ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 397/LKW/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Anadee Nath Misshraa.Y. 2017-18 Priya Kant Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer 1/428, Vishal Khand, Gomti (Exemption), Lucknow, The Nagar, Lucknow, U.P. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Pan:Aaatb4391F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 16.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.04.2025 O R D E R Per Sudhanshu Srivastava, J.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) On 24.04.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assesse Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ld. Cit (A)") Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Ex-Parte Without Appreciating The Legal Aspects Pertaining To The Case Of The Assessee & Also Without Looking Into The Merit Of The Additions Made By The Ld. A.O. 2. On The Undemoted Facts The Ld. Cit (A) Was Not Justified At All In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant. Because No Notice Of Hearing Was Served On The Appellant Either On Her Postal Address Or On The Ernail-Id Provided In The Appeal Memo.

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 68

Basudeb Das, South 24 Parganas vs. I.T.O., Ward - 26(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1308/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1308/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2017-2018) Basudeb Das, Vs Ito, Ward-26(1), Kolkata Mamudpur, Charashyamdas, Bishnupur, South 24 Parganas West Bengal Pan No. :Aqppd9974P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Ms. Madhumita Das, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.03.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. As Per The Appeal Record, It Is Observed That The Appeal Is Filed Belatedly By 34 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Application Stating Therein Sufficient Reasons For Condonation Of Delay. Considering The Reasons Stated In The Application Of The Assessee, The Delay Of 34 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeals Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Counsel Of The Assessee Has Raised The Additional Ground Which Is Extracted As Under :- 1. For That On The Facts Of The Case, The Assessing Officer Issuing The Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 On 24.09.2018 Did Not Have Jurisdiction Over The Case Of The Assessee, As There Was No Mention Of The Type Of Scrutiny Under Which The Case Of The Assessee Has Been Selected, Hence The Notice Is Bad-In-Law

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Madhumita Das, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)