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)

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram vs. M/S. Sai Ram Developers and Builders, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 625/VIZ/2019[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jul 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.625/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Sai Ram Developers & Ward-1 Builders Visakhapatnam C/O Sri G.Janardhana Rao D.No.48-6-47, Srinagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aazfs1988C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.03/Viz/2020 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.625/Viz/2019) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/S Sai Ram Developers & Builders Vs. Income Tax Officer C/O Sri G.Janardhana Rao Ward-1 D.No.48-6-47, Srinagar Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aazfs1988C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) निर्ााररती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Gvn Hari, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22 .07.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short, Cit(A)]-1

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 46A(3)

Anil Kumar Khadelwal(HUF), Bareiily vs. ITO-1(1), Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Khandelwal(Huf) V. The Ito 1(1) 39, Moar Kothi, Gangapur Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aacha2002E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12 07 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 07 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Dated 15.3.2022, For Assessment Year 2017- 18, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Because No Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued By The Ito-1(1), Bareilly-New, Being The Income-Tax Authority Vested With The Jurisdiction Of Assessing Officer In The Case Of The Appellant, The Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2019 Passed By The Said Income-Tax Authority Is Wholly Without Jurisdiction & Consequently The Said Assessment Order Deserved To Be Held As Bad In Law & Thus Was Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Because Even If It Is Held That The Acit-1, Bareilly Was Validly Vested With The Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer On The Date Of Issue Of Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 24.09.2018 Then Also The Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2019 Cannot Be Held To Be Legally Valid As The Same Was Not Passed By The Acit-1, Bareilly Who Initiated The Regular Assessment Proceedings By Issuing Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 24.09.2018. Page 2 Of 15

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani D.R
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A