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)

Marappan Jayalakshmi, Dharmapuri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dharmapuri

In the result, the ground no

ITA 4031/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Honourable George George K & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4031/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2017-18 Marappan Jayalakshmi V. Income Tax Officer, No.2/7A, Bye Pass Road, Ward-1, Karimangalam (Po & Tk), Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri (Dist.) Tamil Nadu-635 111. [Pan: Alcpj1361Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A (Virtual), Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Beesam Narasing Rao, Jcit Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld.Cit(A)’), Dated 27.05.2025 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2017-18. Grounds Of Appeal 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of First Appellate Authority Dated 27.05.2025 In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Is Not Legally Justified. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The First Appellate Authority Is Not Justified In Sustaining The Order Of The Ao, Where The Ao Has Made A Legal Error In Issuance Of Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act Dated 30.06.2021. The Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Has Been Issued In An Invalid Format In Violation To The Cbdt Instruction No. F. No. 225/157/2017/Ita-Ii Dated Marappan Jayalakshmi 23.06.2017 & Accordingly, The Assessment Order Passed Consequently Is Void-Ab-Initio & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Mr. T.S. Lakshmi VenkataramanFor Respondent: Mr. Beesam Narasing Rao, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 194DSection 194HSection 194JSection 250

Ram Kumar Gupta, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-7, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the assessment order is quashed

ITA 7659/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalram Kumar Gupta, Dcit, A-68, Rajouri Garden, Central Circle-7, New Delhi-110027. Vs. Delhi. Pan-Aagpg3808E (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Sandeep Goel, Adv. Assessee By Department By Ms. Amisha S Gupta, Citdr Date Of Hearing 22/04/2026 08/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Delhi [Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 24.10.2025 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 21.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed His Return Of Income On 06.10.2022 Declaring Total Income At Rs.16,94,410/-. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Purchases & Sale Of Iron Goods Under The Sole Proprietorship Firm Namely M/S Shri Ram Steels Syndicate. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The Act On 02.02.2022 In The Case Of Sakarni Group & Ors. & The Assessee Was Also Covered. During The Search, Cash & Jewellery Were Found & Seized From The Ram Kumar Gupta Vs. Dcit Possession Of Assessee. Thereafter, The Notices U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 23.06.2023 & After Considering The Submissions Made By The Assessee, The Ao Has Made Additions Of Rs.67,00,000/- Being Cash Found During The Course Of Search As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act & Further Estimated The Income At Rs. 55,75,428/- By Applying G.P. Rate Of 3%. Accordingly, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs. 1,39,69,838/-.

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A