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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Prakash Ferrous Industries Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 693/CHNY/2023[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.693/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 & C.O. No. 27/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No.693/Chny/2023] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Prakash Ferrous Industries Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle 1(1), New No. 36, New Avadi Road, Chennai. Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. [Pan:Aaecp7094C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit Assessee By : Shri Shashi Kumar Agarwal, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 07.12.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objections Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 23.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2020-21. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Id. Commissioner Of I. T. (Appeals) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S. 69A Of The It Act, Towards Unexplained Money, Amounting To Rs. 96,54,335/- , Without

For Appellant: Shri Shashi Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

M/S Rishabh Info Park Private Limited, Guindy Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate 1(4), Nungmbakkam Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 412/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.412/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Rishabh Info Park Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Super A 16 & A17, Thiruvika Corporate Circle I(4), Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aaccr9899K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Viswanathan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Dated 30.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2018 Declaring Nil Income & Claimed Current Year Loss To The Tune Of ₹.1,93,48,772/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Appellant: Shri R. Viswanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

M/S. Rupasi Bangla Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Paschim Midnapur vs. ITO, Ward-38(1), Midnapur., Paschim Midnapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 909/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 909/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Rupasi Bangla Agro Industries Income Tax Officer, Ward – 38(1), Pvt. Ltd. Vs Midnapur Duki, Village & P.O. Duki Dist. Paschim Midnapur - 721253 [Pan: Aaecr8402L] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 05/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ao In Adding Back Rs.13,29,00,000/- As Unexplained Cash Credit Under Sec 68 When The Appellant Filed The Pan Of Share Applicants & Are Registered With Roc Having Cin, Bank Statement & Source Declaration Of The Share Applicants & Thus The Onus Lay On The Appellant Was Duly Discharged But The Ao Did Not Proceed Further To Make Any Enquiry & Added Back The Amount Without Bringing Any Evidence To Prove Otherwise. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Ao In Adding Back Rs.13,29,00,000/- & Treating The Said Sum Of As Unexplained On The Ground That The Assessee Failed To Discharge Its Onus Simply Because The Share Applicants Did Not Appear In Response To Notice U/S 131 When The Same Has Nothing To Do With Ingredients To Prove The Cash Credit U/S 68. 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68