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)

Co-Operative Cane Development Union Limited, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. Assessment Unit/ACIT, Sitapur

ITA 916/LKW/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 May 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2022-23 Cooperative Cane Development Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Union Ltd., Maholi, C/O Ayyubi Department/Assistant Chamber, Raniganj, Lakhimpur Commissioner Of Income Tax- Kheri-262001, U.P. Sitapur, U.P. Pan: Aaatc4152F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. & Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 31.10.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3), For The A.Y. 2022-23, On 6.03.2024. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1) That Notice U/S 143(2) Of I. T. Act Has Been Issued By Assessment Unit. Income Tax Department, Dated 02-06-2023 Who Have No Jurisdiction To Issue The Same In View Of Cbdt Circular / Notification Dated 29.03.2022 Wherein It Has Been Specifically Enumerated That The Npac Has Exclusive Power To Issue The Notice U/S 148 Of L. T. Act, 1961, Hence The Present Assessment Is Invalid As Per Law. (2) That The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Allowing Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(Ii) & 80P(2)(1) Of L. T. Act On Interest Received On Investments Held With Banks In Form Of F.D.R.'S & Interest On Saving Bank Account Rs. 8484711/-

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. & Sh. K.RFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Jitendra Navnitlal Upadhyay, M/S Avantika Enterprises vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dwarka

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 76/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 May 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 75 & 76/Rjt/2026 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2013-14) Jitendra Navnitlal Upadhyay Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, M/S Avantika Enterprises, Near बनाम/ Dwarka Vs. Rabari Gate, Dwarka, Gujarat-361335, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aavpu8193M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2026 :: आदेश/Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 28.11.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act Dated 28.03.2022. 2. Since These Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee & Identical & Common Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

Jitendra Navnitlal Upadhyay, M/S Avantika Enterprises vs. ITO Ward 1, Dwarka

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, in ITA No

ITA 75/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 May 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 75 & 76/Rjt/2026 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: (2013-14) Jitendra Navnitlal Upadhyay Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, M/S Avantika Enterprises, Near बनाम/ Dwarka Vs. Rabari Gate, Dwarka, Gujarat-361335, "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aavpu8193M (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/05/2026 :: आदेश/Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14, Is Directed Against The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 28.11.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Ld.Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short ‘Ao’) U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act Dated 28.03.2022. 2. Since These Two Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee & Identical & Common Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250