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)

M/S Sgs Agro Farms Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-6(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 879/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.878, 879 & 880/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/S. Sgs Agro Farms Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 59, 1St Floor, 2Nd Street, Secretariat Income Tax, Colony, Kellys, Chennai 600 010. Corporate Circle 6(1), [Pan:Aalcs7389E] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 06.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16. 2. These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 58 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. By Referring To The Above Affidavit, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That There Is Reasonable Cause For The Delay & 2

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

M/S Sgs Agro Farms Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-6(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 878/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.878, 879 & 880/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/S. Sgs Agro Farms Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 59, 1St Floor, 2Nd Street, Secretariat Income Tax, Colony, Kellys, Chennai 600 010. Corporate Circle 6(1), [Pan:Aalcs7389E] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 06.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16. 2. These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 58 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. By Referring To The Above Affidavit, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That There Is Reasonable Cause For The Delay & 2

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-13(1)., Kolkata

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

ITA 300/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 300/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Assistant Commissioner Of Income Development Corporation Limited Vs Tax, Circle-13(1), Kolkata Hidco Bhaban 35-1111, Major Arterial Road 3Rd Rotary, New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaacw4115F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R. Dutta, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 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, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 14/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred Both In Fact & In Law In Upholding The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.45,31,06,825 To The Total Income Of The Appellant. 2. That The Order Dated 10 June2021 Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed & / Or Set Aside As The Same Proceeds On The Basis Of The Return Filed On The Basis Of Accounts Of The Appellant Under Gaap & Not On The Basis Of Accounts Converted Into Ind-As, As The Adoption Of Ind-As Became

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Dutta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

M/S.Bds Foods Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T, Cir-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.193/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Bds Foods Pvt. Ltd.....................…...………………….………....Appellant Shop No.A3, 210, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700089. [Pan: Aacci2360J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata........….........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 31, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 14.02.2023 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 Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing The Order Ex-Parte Without Allowing The Appellant Any Proper & Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. For That The Ld. C.I.T(A) Erred In It Was Passing The Order When Incumbent On Him To Deal With & Decide Each Of The Grounds Raised In The Appeal On Its Merits.

Section 133Section 147Section 148Section 250

Chanchal Kumar Samanta, Purba Medinipur vs. Asst. CIT, Cir.-27, Purba Medinipur

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

ITA 910/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 910/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Chanchal Kumar Samanta Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Stall No. C-3, Mohana Marketing Complex Vs Circle – 27, Haldia Haldia Township Haldia - 721607 [Pan : Ateps7626R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 7, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/02/2017, 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 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Was Unjustified In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 60,86,100/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Alleged Undisclosed Stock Of Jewellery.

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44A

Padmanabhan Mohan, Chennai vs. The ITO, Intnl Taxn Ward-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 750/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.750/Chny/2023 िनधा)रण वष) /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Padmanabhan Mohan, The Income Tax Officer, Aa-86, 1St Floor, Block C, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(2), 4Th Street, 1St Main Road, Chennai. Annanagar West, Chennai – 600 040. [Pan: Azqpm-2586-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2023 : 13.10.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manomohan Das, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai [Cit(A)] Dated 16-03-2023 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] & Pertains To The Assessment Year [Ay] 2017-18. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That The Ld.Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Directing The Assessing Officer To Adopt The Cost Of Purchase Of The Property At Rs. 45,45,600/- As Against The Actual Cost Of Rs.51,84,000/- Incurred By The Appellant & Consequently Not Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Of Balance Cost/Of Rs.6,38,400/-. :- 2 -: 2. That The Ld.Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,63,648/ Made By The Assessing Officer Towards Cost Of Registration Charges Claimed By The Appellant. 3. That The Ld.Cit(A) Ought To Have Directed The Assessing Officer To Allow The Benefit Of Indexation On The Above Cost.”

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 250(6)