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)

P.Srinivasan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Hosur

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

ITA 870/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 870/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ponnusamy Srinivasan, The Income Tax Officer, No.51/19, Venugopalasamy Street, Vs. Ward 1(1), Hosur – 635 109. Hosur. Pan: Gcyps 1607B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S. Subramaniam, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1060347000 (1) Dated 30.01.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Hosur For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 29.12.2019. 2. At The Outset, The Ld.Ar For The Assessee Stated That The Order Of Cit(A) Is Ex-Parte & There Is No Adjudication By Cit(A)-Nfac On Merits Of The Case. It Was Stated By Ld.Ar That Even On Jurisdictional Ground On New Issue Of 143(2) Of The Act, The Cit(A)-Nfac Has Not Properly Adjudicated The Issue. On Merits, The Issue Is Addition Made By The Ao Of Unexplained Cash Deposit Added U/S.69A Of The Act & Taxed U/S.115Bbe Of The Act Amounting To Rs.31,13,500/- & Assessing ‘Income From Other Sources’ At Rs.22,97,140/-. The Ld.Ar Stated That The Cit(A)-Nfac Has Given His Adjudication As Under:- 6. Ground No. 6: This Ground Pertains To Legality Of Assessment U/S 144 Without Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2).

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Subramaniam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

Sunil Ramesh Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 17(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1199/MUM/2024[2013 - 2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 1199/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) Sunil Ramesh Gupta Vs. Ito-17(3)(4) 31, Sahakar Building Room No. 123 B Road, Churchgate 1St Floor Mumbai-400 020. Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Pan : Aabpg3465A Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Smt. Madhura Karpe Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi Am 1. This Appeal Is Filed By Mr. Sunil Ramesh Gupta For Assessment Year 2013 – 14 Against The Appellate Order Of Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Kolkata (The Learned Cit – A) Dated 17/1/2024 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 18Th/3/2016 Passed Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) By The Income Tax Officer – 17 (3) (4), Mumbai Was Partly Allowed. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Appellate Order & Has Preferred Appeal For The Solitary Ground That The Learned Cit – A Confirmed Denial Of Deduction Of Rs. 1,936,390/– Of Interest Under Section 24 (B) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 To The Assessee. 3. Assessee Is An Individual Proprietor Of Two Proprietary Concerns, Carrying On Job Works Of Axle India Ltd, Filed His Return Of Income On 5/8/2013 At Total Income Of Rs. 710,760/–. Return Was Picked Up For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143 (2) Was Issued On 5/9/2014. Page 1 Of 4

Section 143Section 24

Mohammed Iqbal Mulla, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 11(1)(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result all the grounds of appeal are allowed with above direction

ITA 4808/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 4808/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2016-17) Mohammed Iqbal Mulla Vs. Ito-11(1)(1) 601/701, Atlantis, Seven Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow, Andheri West M.K. Road Maharashtra-400 061. Churchgate Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaepm2197E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rishab Jain Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Mulla, ( The Assessee Appellant) Against The Appellate Order Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2016 – 17 On 30/10/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 27/12/2018 Passed By The Income Tax Ofc, Ward – 11 (1) (2), Mumbai (The Learned Ao) Wherein The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs. 1,655,770/– On Account Of Addition Of Salary Income, Unsecured Loan Under Section 68, Advanced Against Sale Of Agricultural Land Under Section 68 & Agricultural Income , Total Addition Amounting To Rs. 5,401,802/–, Was Dismissed. 2. Therefore, The Assessee Is Aggrieved With The Appellate Order & Has Preferred To Appeal Raising Grounds Against All The Additions Confirmed. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Show That The Assessee Is An Individual & Director In Cities In World Travels Private Limited & Messes Present Page 1 Of 6

Section 143Section 68

Meena Bharat Gohil, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward No 20(2)(2), Lalbaug Parel

In the result, these grounds of appeal of the assessee are restored back to the file of AO

ITA 4803/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 4803/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Meena Bharat Gohil Ito, Ward-20(2)(2) Room No. 60, New Piramal Chamber Bhawan Chawl, Cotton Mumbai. Green, Veer Tanaji Malusare Marg, Kala Chowki S.O. Mumbai-400 033. Pan : Ajnpg2509G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satya Prakash Singh Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By Mrs. Meena Bharat Gohil (The Assessee/Appellant) Against The Appellate Order By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac, Delhi (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2017 – 18 Dated 7/11/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (The Act) Dated 24/12/2019 Passed By The Income Tax Officer Ward – 20 (2) (2), Mumbai (The Learned Ao) Was Dismissed. 2. Assessee Aggrieved With The Same Is In Appeal Before Us Challenging The Order Passed By The Learned That Appellate Authority For Passing The Order Can The Addition Under Section 69A In Respect Of Rs. 4,605,000/- Cash Deposited During Demonetization In The Bank Account Of The Assessee Despite Providing Sufficient Explanation With Page 1 Of 6

Section 115BSection 133Section 142Section 143Section 69A

Convonix Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4061/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudharyconvonix Systems Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Limited, 15Th Floor, Urmi Of Income Tax, Circle Estate, 95, Ganpatrao 15(1)(2), 4Th Floor, Kadam Marg, Delisle Road Aayakar Bhavan, S.O. Mumbai, Maharishi Karve Road, Maharashtra – 400013 Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccc5795P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Pratik Shah Respondent By : H.M. Bhatt Date Of Hearing 22.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Passed By The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Tax ("Ld. Ao") Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Assessing The Income Of The Appellant At Inr 18,07,08,220/-Instead Of Returned Income Of Inr 17,15,15,710/- & The Demand Raised Thereon On The Appellant Is Invalid & Bad In Law, The Appellant Prays That The Addition Made By The Ld. Ao Be Deleted 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ['1D. Cit(A)'] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ld. Ao In Making An Adhoc Disallowance Of 50% In Relation To The Shared Service Expenses Amounting To Inr 91,92,505/-.

For Appellant: Pratik ShahFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

Thakur Uday Shankar, Samastipur vs. DCIT Central Circle, Muzaffarpur

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

ITA 208/PAT/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 208/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Thakur Uday Shankar Dcit, Cc - Muzaffarpur M/S. Lakshya Science & Vs Commerce Coaching Centre Kashipur Samastipur - 848104 [Pan : Bsgps0474R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Girish Kumar Thakur, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 28/04/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grievance Of The Assessee Revolves Around The Addition Of Rs.48,09,065/- Sustained By The Ld. Cit(A) Estimating Income From Receipts From Tuitions. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Runs A Coaching Institute Named As M/S. Lakshya Science & Commerce Coaching At Samastipur. A Survey Action Was Carried Out U/S 133A Of The Act On 28/11/2018. Income Of Rs.44,09,610/- Declared In The Return For Assessment Year 2019-20 Furnished On

For Appellant: Dr. Girish Kumar Thakur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, D/R
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250