← All Phrases

“Section 143(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 143Section 143(3)45,044 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 143(3) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 143(3)

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.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

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. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Judgments citing Section 143(3)

Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa, Rajahmundry vs. ITO., Ward-13(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1263/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajahmundry. Ward-13(1), Pan: Aaypa8644C Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid Mode) Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 05/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 13/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 16/06/2025 For The A.Y. 2017-18. Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa Vs. Ito 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 115BSection 127Section 143(2)

cash deposits amounting to Rs.28,21,222/- as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2019. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... said officer has not issued any notice under section 143(2) of the Act and therefore the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is liable to be held invalid. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that as per the details available on the Income

Syed Salahuddin, Chennai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Non-Corp, Ward 3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 4086/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:4086/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Syed Salahuddin, The Income Tax Officer, No.15/8, Greams Road, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 3(3), So Gulam Abbas Ali Khan, Chennai. 3Rd Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. Pan: Akips 7374P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Bharat Janarthanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Arron Prasad, Addl.Cit (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.03.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai Dated 29.10.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17. :- 2 -: 2. At The Very Outset, We Notice That The Order Passed By The First Appellate Authority (Faa) Is Ex-Parte, Since There Was No Compliance From The Assessee To Six Notices Issued From The Office Of The First Appellate Authority.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Janarthanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arron Prasad, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem vs. Ravishankar, Salem

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

ITA 2626/CHNY/2025[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy, S.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2626/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ravishankar, Income Tax, 735, Lrc Abarana Maaligai, Circle 1, Bazaar Street, Attur Tk, Salem. Salem 636 102. [Pan: Aahhr5519N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 55 Days. The Dcit Circle 1, Salem Filed A Condonation Petition For The Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Dcit Are Bonafide, Which 2

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69B

treated the excess amount as income from sources and added under section 69B of the Act vide order dated 29.09.2021 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Having aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and considering the submissions of the assessee