Section 143 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.270

Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery (392 ITR 4), cited in 417 of the 703 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 143

CIT v. Shri Samson Perinchery
392 ITR 4 · 2017 · High Court
417
citing judgments

A penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is unsustainable if it is initiated on one limb (e.g., concealment of income) but ultimately levied on the other limb (e.g., furnishing inaccurate particulars). This also applies if the initial penalty notice is vague or ambiguous regarding the specific charge.

CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd.
309 ITR 67 · 2009 · High Court
149
citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous or prejudicial under Section 263 merely because it is silent on a claim or lacks explicit reasons for its acceptance. Revision under Section 263 is impermissible if the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view, even if the PCIT holds a different opinion.

Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors
13 SCC 369 · 2008 · Supreme Court
139
citing judgments

For the applicability of Section 271(1)(c) penalty, the Assessing Officer must be satisfied that the assessee concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars; however, this satisfaction is not required to be recorded in a particular manner or reduced to writing.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd.
262 ITR 260 · 2003 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Journal entries for accepting or repaying loans and deposits, without any actual cash transaction, do not violate the provisions of Section 269SS or Section 269T of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, such transactions do not attract penalties under Section 271D or Section 271E.

ACIT v. Venkateshwar Ispat (P) Ltd.
319 ITR 393 · 2009 · High Court
97
citing judgments

An assessee company receiving share application money from identified alleged bogus shareholders cannot have this amount treated as its undisclosed income under Section 68, provided the company furnishes the shareholders' identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. The tax authorities must instead proceed against the individual shareholders.

Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills
13 SCC 448 · 2009 · Reported
91
citing judgments

For the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c), the specific conditions laid down in the section must be demonstrably met. The assessee's filed return is the primary document for furnishing income particulars, and inaccuracies therein are crucial for penalty imposition.

373 (Delhi-Trib), Satkar Fincap Ltd. v. ACIT CC-21, New Delhi
52 Taxmann.com 220 · 2014 · High Court
69
citing judgments

For a valid assessment under Section 153C against an 'other person', the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note must explicitly identify seized documents or assets found during a search that specifically belong to that 'other person'. Mere association or relationship with the searched assessee, without specific findings of belonging documents or assets, is insufficient to assume jurisdiction.

CIT v. Jitendra Singh Rathore
352 ITR 327 · 2013 · High Court
39
citing judgments

Penalty orders under sections 271D and 271E passed beyond six months from the end of the month in which the assessment was completed are barred by limitation. Section 275(1)(c) is applicable to such cases, and the limitation period is not reckoned from the date of the show-cause notice.

Union of India v. Gosalia Shipping P. Ltd.
113 ITR 307 · 1978 · Supreme Court
37
citing judgments

Profits of non-residents from occasional shipping business are subject to a special levy and recovery of tax under Section 172 of the Income Tax Act. A time charter party is considered a letting of the ship when control over its working and navigation is transferred.

Modi Industries Ltd. v. CIT
216 ITR 759 · 1995 · Supreme Court
25
citing judgments

A tax demand subsists even if the assessment order is set aside, and the date of the original assessment remains the relevant date. This principle clarifies that tax payment methods do not alter the fundamental liability to pay tax based on an assessment order.

Judgments on Section 143

Rupee Soren L/H of Shibu Soren, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITSSA 100/DEL/1997[01/04/1986 to 26/04/1996]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2026

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Bleit(Ss) A No. 100/Del/1997 Block Period : 1.04.1986 To 26.04.1996 Shibu Soren Through Vs. Acit, Cc-6, New Delhi Rupee Soren Legal Heir Of Shibu Soren) Vill-Nemra Po Barlanga Ps Barlanga Jharkhand-829110 (Pan: Asnps4286P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca, Shri Uma Shankar, Adv & Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv. (Vc) Respondent By : Shri K. Hauthang, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.08.2026 Order Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Block Assessment Order Framed By The Acit, Cc-6, Delhi For The Block Period 1.4.1986 To 26.4.1996 U/S. 158Bc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As Act) Vide His Order Dated 29.4.1997. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Regards To Assumption Of Jurisdiction For Farming Of Assessment U/S. 158Bc Without Issuing Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Act After Filing Of Return Of Income For The Block Period In Terms Of Notice U/S. 158Bc Of The Act. For This Assessee Has Raised The Ground No. 2 Vide Concise Grounds Of Appeal, Which Reads As Under:- “2. That The Impugned Assessment Farmed By The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, Is Without Jurisdiction As No Notice U/S. 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, Was Issued & Served After Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Undisclosed Income In Pursuance To Notice Issued U/S. 158Bc Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Shri Shailesh GuptaFor Respondent: Shri K. Hauthang, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 158Section 158B

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sunanda Polymers, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5819/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Sunanda Polymers 43/4, 1St Floor, New Delhi Vs. East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Sh. Ankur Agarwal, Ca Department By Shri. Tarun Sarda, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 08/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 24.06.2025 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short) Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.144(B) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143 Of The Act Dated 18.05.2023 Wherein The Total Addition Of Rs. 3,05,67,087/- Was Made To The Total Income Of Rs. 77,57,074/- Vide Order Dated 13.12.2019 And, Accordingly, Total Income Of The Assessee Was Recomputed At Rs.3,83,24,161/-. Acit Vs. Sunanda Polymers 3. Against The Said Order, Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Wherein The Assessee Has Challenged The Reopening Of The Assessment & Further Challenged The Additions So Made On Merits. The Ld. Cit(A) In Terms Of The Order Dated 24.06.2025 Has Deleted The Additions As Well As Holding The Reopening Of The Assessment U/S 147 Is Not Correct As It Was Initiated On Wrong Presumption & Without Application Of Mind.

Section 147Section 148ASection 250Section 37