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)

Singur Thana Lspa Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Hooghly

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 970/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.968-970/Kol/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Yrs. : 2014-2015, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Singur Thana Lspa Vs Ito, Ward-23(2), Hooghly Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aabas0029 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders All Dated 15.03.2023, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, 2017- 2018 & 2018-2019. 2. As Per The Office Record, It Is Found That All The Three Appeals Of The Assessee Are Filed Belatedly By 120 Days Each. Looking To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, We Condone The Delay Of 120 Days Each In Fling All The Three Appeals & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Singur Thana Lspa Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Hooghly

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 969/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.968-970/Kol/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Yrs. : 2014-2015, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Singur Thana Lspa Vs Ito, Ward-23(2), Hooghly Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aabas0029 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders All Dated 15.03.2023, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, 2017- 2018 & 2018-2019. 2. As Per The Office Record, It Is Found That All The Three Appeals Of The Assessee Are Filed Belatedly By 120 Days Each. Looking To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, We Condone The Delay Of 120 Days Each In Fling All The Three Appeals & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Singur Thana Lspa Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Hooghly

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 968/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.968-970/Kol/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / A.Yrs. : 2014-2015, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019) Singur Thana Lspa Vs Ito, Ward-23(2), Hooghly Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, C/O S.N.Ghosh&Associates,Advs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aabas0029 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh & Sarnath Ghosh, Advocates राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders All Dated 15.03.2023, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-2015, 2017- 2018 & 2018-2019. 2. As Per The Office Record, It Is Found That All The Three Appeals Of The Assessee Are Filed Belatedly By 120 Days Each. Looking To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, We Condone The Delay Of 120 Days Each In Fling All The Three Appeals & The Appeals Are Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Ms. Madhumita Sas, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Mr. Anil Bherumal Kalal, Mumbai vs. ITO -19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, substantial ground of appeal raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 1189/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Mr. Anil Bherumal Kalal Ito – 19(2)(1), Mumbai A-602, Pooja Enclave, S T Braz Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Behind Nanavati Hospital, Vile Parle Bandra (East), Mumbai – West, Mumbai-400056. 400051. Pan: Aabpk 3216 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.04.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dated 30.12.2024 For A.Y. 2006-07. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Validity Of The Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act & The Assessment Thereunder: 1.A) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit (A)] Erred In Upholding The Assessment For The Assessment Year 2006-07 Framed By The Learned Assessing Officer Without Complying With The Relevant Provisions Of The Law. B) It Is Respectfully Submitted That No Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Served On The Appellant Within The Time Limits Prescribed Under Section 143(2) Of The Act. Accordingly, The Learned Assessing Officer Had No Jurisdiction To Proceed With Scrutiny Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. Thus, The Assessment Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed & Struck Down As Null & Void. In View Of The Above, The Appellant Prays That The Assessment Be Set Aside As Bad In Law & Struck Down As Null & Void.

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 254(1)Section 54FSection 69