← All Phrases

“section 143(3) order”

Assessment ProceduresSection 143(3)Section 143(3)29 judgments

The decision most relied on for section 143(3) order is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on section 143(3) order

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.

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO
259 ITR 19 · 2003 · Supreme Court
1,349
citing judgments

When a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons for reopening upon the assessee's request and must dispose of the assessee's objections to the notice by passing a speaking order.

Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE
281 CTR 241 · 2015 · Supreme Court
1,335
citing judgments

An assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements are relied upon for adverse findings. Failure to provide this opportunity is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity.

CIT v. Max India Ltd.
295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,162
citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.
203 ITR 108 · 1993 · High Court
990
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order under Section 263 merely because they hold a different opinion or believe a deeper inquiry was warranted if the Assessing Officer has applied their mind and conducted some inquiry. Revision under Section 263 is permissible only in cases of a complete lack of inquiry or non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, not for merely inadequate inquiry.

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.
332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court
897
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Tin Box Company v. CIT
249 ITR 216 · 2001 · Supreme Court
624
citing judgments

When an issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the AO must conduct a de novo examination and provide the assessee a full opportunity of being heard. The assessee is bound to comply with the notices issued by the AO.

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT
67 ITR 84 · 1968 · Supreme Court
616
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests if the Assessing Officer accepts a sum offered as income by an assessee, even when that sum was not actually earned, thereby allowing revision under Section 263.

Judgments citing section 143(3) order

Axis Carriers and Logistics Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5846/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Axis Carriers & Logistics Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 803, B Kukreja Palace, Vallabh Baug Tax, 14(1)(1) Lane, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai – Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, 400075. Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aadca9585A (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Rakesh Milwani Respondent By : Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, It Is Submitted That Once An Order Is Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter, For The Sake Of Brevity, Referred To As "The Act'), The Intimation Of Processing Of Return Of Income U/S 143(1) Of The Act Ceases To Be In Force & Cannot Be Acted Upon Having Merged With Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Therefore Additions Made While Processing Return Of Income Cease To Exist Once Order Is Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & The Additions Made To The Income U/S 143(1) Of The Act & Demands Raised Thereon Ought To Be Deleted. Axis Carriers & Logistics Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh MilwaniFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

above facts, the only issue that has to be adjudicated is whether the order passed u/s. 143(1) would merge automatically with Section 143(3) order passed by the ld. AO. In the present case in hand, it is observed that disallowance