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)

Mr. Subramanian Vijay Sethunarayanan, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 2934/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2934/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & S.A. No. 80/Chny/2024 [In Ita No. 2934/Chny/2024] Mr. Subramanian Vijay Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sethunarayanan, Old No. 57/3, New Ward 3(3), Trichy. No. 25, 14Th Cross Ii Main Road, Trichy 620 021. [Pan:Afdpv5473J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ilayaraja, K.S., Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.12.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 274 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilayaraja, K.S., Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 144

Shyamendra Kumar, Patna vs. ITO Ward 6(5), Patna

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

ITA 332/PAT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.332/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shyamendra Kumar..… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant Sahay Nagar, Jalalpur, Bailey Road, Patna-801506. [Pan: Akmpk4312R] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(5), Patna……. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Care Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Entered Into A Land Development Agreement With M/S Laliteshwar Builder, Patna In The Financial Year 2010-11 Relevant To Assessment Year 2011-12. However, The Assessee Failed To File Any Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year, Consequently, A Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued On 28.03.2018 To Bring To Tax The Income Pertaining To Capital Gains Arising Out Of The Transactions Of The Land Development Agreement. Subsequently, A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued, However, There Was No Compliance From The Assessee. Due To This Non-

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

Gouri Singla, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Siliguri

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 488/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.488/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gouri Singla………….… ……….. ……..……………………....Appellant C/O Paramount Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Mangal Pandey Road, Khalpara, Siliguri- 734005. [Pan: Ajbps9966M] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Siliguri…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.02.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Run A Proprietorship Business & Filed Return Of Income On 29.09.2013 For The Relevant Assessment Year Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,67,610/. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act As Per Information Received. Accordingly, Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued. In Response To The Notices, The Assessee Has Not Furnished The Requisite Details To The Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer Noticed That The Assessee Had Taken Loan Of Rs.22,00,000/- From Various Lenders During The Assessment Year. He Also Noticed That The Assessee Had Also Cash Deposited Of Rs.5,69,000/- In Her Bank Account.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A