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)

Jurisdictional ITO -31(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gopalbhai Shamjibhai Kalsaria, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 439/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.439/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-31(1)(1) बिधम/ Gopalbhai Shamjibhai Kalsaria Room No.603, 6Th Floor, 122/10, Jawahar Nagar, Road Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra No.10 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- Kurla Complex, „G‟ Block, 400062. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagpk6469B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Prasoon Kabra Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.01.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -42 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Estimating The Profit To 12.5% Of Bogus Purchases Against 100% Addition Made By The Ao. A.Y.2009-10 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred, In Not Considering That The Addition Was Made On The Basis Of Information Received From Dgit(Inv.) & Sales Tax Department Maharashtra With Regard To Bogus Purchases Made By The Assessee From Dealers Without Supply Of Actual Goods. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred, In Not Considering That The Hawala Operators Have Admitted On Oath Before The Sales Tax Authorities That They Have Not Sold Any Material To Anybody. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred, In Not Considering That The Assessee Could Not Prove The Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of Purchase Transactions During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147

Sunita Rakesh Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO -29(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 542/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.542/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sunita Rakesh Jain बिधम/ Ito-29(3)(4) 308, 3Rd Floor, C-10, 1701, Brighton Towers, Hari Vs. Om Nagar, Near Eastern Pratyakshakar Bhawan, Express Highway Mulund Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- East, Mumbai-400081. 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agqpj7159M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjiv Brahme Revenue By: Shri Bhomika Patel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 13.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Relevant To The A.Y.2015- 16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Cit(A) Failed To Service A Proper Notice To The Appellant & Passed The Ex-Parte Order. A.Y.2015-16 2. The Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Ao Did Not Carry Out Any Independent Enquiry Himself For The Reconciliation Of Sales Amount Therefore, The Addition Sustained By Cit(A) Is Unjustified & Is Liable To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv BrahmeFor Respondent: Shri Bhomika Patel
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

Dy CIT - 26(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vijay Engg. Works., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 469/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.469/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit-26(1) बिधम/ M/S. Vijay Engineering Room No.623, 6Th Floor, Works, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Unit No.11, Kamaldeep Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Industrial Estate Sonawala Mumbai-400051. Cross Road No.2, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafv1227E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Prasoon Kabra Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.01.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -42 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs.1,09,659/- For Ay 2007-08 On Account Of Bogus Purchases?" A.Y.2009-10 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering That The Addition Was Made On The Basis Of Information Received From Dgit(Lnv.) & Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra With Regard To Bogus Purchase Made By The Assessee From Dealers Without Supply Of Actual Goods."

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147

ITO, Ward-4(1), Thane vs. Shri Akshay Anil Sawant, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 420/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 420 To 422/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Ito Ward-4(1), Thane बिधम/ Shri Akshay Anil Sawant Room No.03, A- Wing 6Th Prop M/S. Akshay Plastics, 12, Vs. Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Sarang Industrial Estate, Industrial Estate, Thane(W)- Navghar Road, Vasai (E)- 400604. 401210. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bhgps4851P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Prasoon Kabra (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vinay Bhoir (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -03, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009- 10 To 2011-12. Ita. No.420/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.02.2020 Passed By The Cit(A)-03, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Bhoir (AR)For Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Hal Offshore Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 6956/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2Nd August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is One Of The Group Companies Of Mmg Group & Has Business Interest In Several Segments Like Chartering & Leasing Of Vessels To Ongc & Shipping, Etc. In This Case, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act, 1961 Was Carried Out On 28Th March, 2015. During The Course Of Search, Documents & Data Storage Devices, Etc., Belonging To The Assessee Were Found & Seized. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th July, 2016 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.12,15,49,580/-. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 20Th May, 2016 Which Was Duly Served On The Assessee. Subsequently, Notice U/S 142(1) Along With A Questionnaire Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Certain Information. The Assessee Complied To The Said Questionnaire By Filing The Requisite Details.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)