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)

Winwood Marketing Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 6(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2196/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Winwood Marketing Pvt. Ltd..……..………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Agarwal Vishwanath & Associates, 133/1/1A, Sn Banerjee Road, Pushkal Bhawan 3Rd Floor, Kol – 700013. [Pan: Aabcw3528M] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata…….……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subhankar Ghosh, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 19, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.09.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13 Declaring A Total Income Nil. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass With The Reason ‘Large Share Premium Received’. Accordingly, Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued. The Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Was Passed Determining Total Income Of Rs.4,79,44,500/- (Share Capital Of Rs.8,30,000/- + Premium Of Rs.4,71,14,500/-) & The Assessing Officer Also Initiated Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Winwood Marketing Pvt. Ltd 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A), Wherein, The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed & The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) As Made By The Assessing Officer Was Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A).

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Raj Goenka, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1801/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2022-23 Dcit, Cc-4(3), Kolkata……...……..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Raj Goenka…………………………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent 10Th Floor Magma House, 24, Park Street Park Street, Kol-16. [Pan: Adlpg8181C] Appearances By: Shri S B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.04.2025 Of The Cit(Appeals)-27, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 08 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Chauli Singhapur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Pashchim Medinipur vs. ACIT, Circle 38, Midnapore

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

ITA 1204/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Chauli Sighapur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd.……….……….……Appellant Singapur, Chauli, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur 721212.. [Pan: Aacac0960C] Vs. Acit, Circle-38, Midnapore…………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 21, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 05, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.04.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2010–11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society, Carrying On Business Of Sales Of Fertilisers, Pesticides, Seeds, Providing Loans To Members & Registered Under West Bengal Co-Operative Society Act, 2006. The Assessee Filed Its Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Disclosing A Total Income At Rs Nil. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) By Denying Deduction Of Rs.29,43,810/- U/S 80P(2) Of The Act & Also Added Back Cash Deposited Rs.24,86,110/- Out Of Total Cash Deposited Rs.2,10,09,000/- During The Period Of Demonetization From 09-11-2016 To 30-12-2016 As Unexplained Money U/S 69A Of The Act.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 80P(2)