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)

Sujeet Kumar Mishra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-61(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 7784/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2008-09 Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Vs. Ito, 436 (Basement), Jangpura, Ward-61(3), Mathura Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aitpm2677A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sujeet Kumar Mishra, Assessee Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.11.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St May, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-38, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.10,80,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit In The Bank Account Under The Head ‘Undisclosed Sources.’ 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Profession & ‘Income From Other Sources.’ During The Course Of Original Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noticed That The Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Rs.10,80,000/- In His Savings Bank Account Maintained With Axis Bank. The Ao Called For The Source Of The Same Which The Assessee Could Not File & Sought Adjournment & Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 144 By Making An Addition Of Rs.10.80 Lac. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Again Due To Non-Appearance & The Matter Reached Before Itat. The Case Was Set Aside By The Itat By Its Order No.5872/Del/2013 Dated 18Th May, 2016 & Remitted The Matter To The File Of Ao For Deciding The Issue Afresh, As Per Law, After Allowing A Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. The Itat Set Aside The Case On The Plea Of The Assessee That The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 144 Of The Act, Without Granting Adequate Opportunity To The Assessee To Present His Case & Same Position Prevailed In So Far As The Appellate Proceedings Are Concerned.

For Appellant: Shri Sujeet Kumar Mishra, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

Smt. Balasubramanian Manju, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 9 (1), Chennai

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

ITA 3432/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3432/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Balasubramanian Manju, The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 18, Kannan Street, Kadaperi Vs. Income Tax, Village, Tambaram Sanitorium (Behind Non Corporate Circle 9(1), Grt Jewellery), Chennai 600 044. Chennai. [Pan:Albpm0301L] (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 : 21.10.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai Dated 11.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. Besides Challenging The Issue Of Estimating The Business Income On The Gross Receipts, On Merits, By Raising Specific Grounds, The Assessee Has Also Challenged The Exparte Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

Asst CIT 22(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Amolraj Printers, Mumbai

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

ITA 634/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.634/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit-22(1) बिधम/ M/S. Amolraj Printers, 352, Room No.322, 3Rd Floor, A To Z Industrial Estate, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mumbai-400012. Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafa1576F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -33 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting Addition Made By The A.O Amounting Rs.3,31,282/- I.E. 100% Of Total Purchase To 25%, Ignoring The Fact That The Action Of The Assessing Officer Was Based On Credible Information Received From The Maharashtra Sales Tax Department & That The Assessee During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of The Purchase Transactions. A.Y.2010-11 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Estimating Addition On Account Of Bogus Purchase To 25% Of Such Purchases As Against The Estimation By The Ao Of 100% Of Bogus Purchases Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Genuineness Of The Alleged Parties From Whom Purchases Is Claimed To Have Been Made During The Year.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 148