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. Sethia Oil Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 696/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 696/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sethia Oil Industries Limited D.C.I.T., Circle -7(1), Kolkata 5Th Floor, Room No. 505 Vs Diamond Heritage Building 16, Strand Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaecs1118E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present 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. 25/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In The Instant Appeal Relates To Disallowance Of Commission Expenditure Of Rs.5,11,200/-. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Vehemently Argued Stating That The Notices Issued U/S 133(6) Of The Act Were Duly Served Upon The Respective Persons Receiving Commission From The Assessee Company. Sufficient Documentary Details Have Been Placed Including Pan Nos., Addresses, Bills For Raising Commission & Other Related Documents To Justify The Genuineness Of The Alleged Commission Expenditure Of Rs.5,11,200/-. On The Other Hand, The Ld. D/R Vehemently Argued Supporting The Orders Of The Lower Authorities.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250

Fortright Consultants (P) Ltd, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guwahati

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

ITA 193/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 193/Gty/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Fortright Consultants Private Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) Vs Guwahati Limited T-1, 3Rd Floor Shivam Apartment House No. 99, A.K. Azad Road Rehabari Guwahati -781008 [Pan : Aaccf2203K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/12/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – Guwahati-1, Guwahati, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 31/03/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Impugned Order Dated 31/03/2018 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati-1, Guwahati Is Without Jurisdiction, Illegal, Invalid & Bad-In-Law Being Passed In The Contraventions Of The Principles Of Natural Justice Without Allowing Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. That The Findings & Observations Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati-1, Guwahati Made In His Order Dated 31/03/2018 Are All Perverse & Contrary To The Facts & Laws Of The Case.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 251(2)Section 68

Sri Meenatchi Fried Gram Mills, Salem vs. The ITO, Ward(16), Salem

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

ITA 784/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.784/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Meenatchi Fried Gram Millss, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 20, Sidco Industrial Estate, Ward 1(6), Ariyanoor, Salem 636 308. Salem. [Pan:Abwfs7998G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2023 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 26.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 11.11.2017 Admitting Total Income Of ₹.2,85,640/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny By Cass & 2

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

M/S Pillapakkam Bahugudumbi Mukunthan, Chengalpet vs. Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Ward-22(2), Chennai

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

ITA 290/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.290/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Pillapakkam Bahugudumbi Mukunthan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 19, Rajaji Street, Chengalpet, Non Corporate Ward 22(2), Kancheepuram 603 001. Tambaram, Chennai. [Pan:Crvpm0640J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2023 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), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 30.07.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual, Deriving Income By Way Of Sale Of Plots & Obtained Pan On 27.12.2015. He Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 25.09.2015 For The First Time Admitting Returned Income Of ₹.20,19,207/-.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A