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)

Noor Ullah Zargar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-50(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 1169/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1169/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2012-13) Noor Ullah Zargar, 32/17, Indl. Fl., Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi 110060 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aahpz-8882-A बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Ward-50(3), New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Chartered Accountant "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 09/12/2024 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 17.01.2024, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submits That Appeal Was Filed Before The Cit(A) On 14.02.2020 Against Assessment Order Dated 30.11.2019 Passed U/S. 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'). She Submitted That The Assessee Was Not Aware Of The Assessment Order As The Said Assessment Order Was Neither Uploaded On The Official Website Of The Department Nor The Same Was Communicated To The Assessee. To Substantiate Her Submission, She Furnished A Copy Of Screenshot From E-Filing Portal

For Appellant: Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

Gazole L S Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Malda vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Malda

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 107/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.107/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gazole L S Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd.……....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocate Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aaaag4743K] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Malda…..…. ….…….…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 06, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.12.2023 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. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee An Agricultural Marketing Cooperative Society & Engaged In Purchase & Sale Of Agricultural Implements. The Primary Consumers Of The Society Are Members Of Large Number Of Primary Agricultural Society & Their Members In Locality. The Society Claimed Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(Iii) & (Iv) Of The Act Contending That The Profit From Its Activity Was Eligible For The Deduction. The Source Of The Cash Deposits In Question Was Attributed To Collections From Sales/Debtors During The Demonetization Period. However, Due To Large Size Of Documents & Vouchers Related To

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8, Jhandewalan vs. Hanish Bansal, New Seelam Our, East Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3855/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-8, Shri Hanish Bansal, E-2, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Vs. F-86, New Seelam Pur, Extension, New Delhi – 55 Delhi – 53 (Pan: Aktpb0813B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : The Revenue Has Filed The Instant Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeal-24), New Delhi Dated 30.10.2023, Relating To Assessment Year 2016- 17 On The Following Ground:- 1. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,46,37,772/- On Account Of Commission Income. 2. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Treating Reassessment Order Invalid On Delay Issuance Of Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act During Covid 19 Pandemic. 3. Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Delving Into The Merits Of Case Where The Ao Has Dearly Established Commission Of The Assessee Based On Evidence Available. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Tax Effect In This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Below Rs. 60 Lakhs. In This Behalf, He Drew Our Attention Towards His Synopsis Wherein, It Has Been Mentioned That The Tax

For Appellant: Sh. Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)