← 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)

Vishal Associates, Kanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 641/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 40A(3)

return of income on 31/10/2018 declaring total income at Rs.94,460/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 143(3A)/143(3B) of the Act and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.29,07,370/- and made addition

Jitendra Singh, Kanpur vs. ITO-1(3)(5), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 548/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Jitendra Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(3)(5), 107/2, Babu Purwa Colony, Kanpur Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Cvxps1754F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.11.2025 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 Dated 12.07.2024 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 154 Passed By The Assessing Officer On 22.07.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That On Facts & In Law The Impugned Order Dated 12.07.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law & Void-Ab-Initio. 2. That The Facts & In Law The Cit(Appeals) Have Erred In Passing The Impugned Appellate Order Without Considering The Request Of The Appellant That The Original Appeal Filed On 15.09.2019 For The Same A.Y. 2013-14 U/S 147/143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961, Before Cit(Appeals) Nfac Is Pending For Order So The Rectification Order U/S 154 By The A.O. For Enhancing The Demand Not Justified In Natural Justice. 3. That On Facts & In Law The Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Not Follow The Provision U/S 115Bbe Properly As Per Law Of Income F Tax So, The Rectification Process U/S 154 Is Bad In Law. 4. That On Facts & In Law The Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Upholding The Levy Of Interest U/S 234A & U/S 234B Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Considering The Original Appeal Filed On 15.09.2019 For The Same A.Y. 2013-14 U/S 147/143(3) Before Cit(Appeals) Nfac Is Pending For Order.

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Prajesh Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Konark Rajhans Estate Private Limited, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 805/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 805/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit M/S Konark Rajhans Estate Private Limited Panchkula Circle बनाम/ Vs. Nh 73, Village Kot Extension-Ii, Sector 14, Panchkula. Panchkula. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeck-2405-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By The Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27-05-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2018. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By Deletion Of Twin Quantum Additions Of Rs.40.85 Lacs & Rs.707.75 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao In The Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)-Ld. AR
Section 131oSection 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 68o

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT

Laljibhai Godadbhai Chaudhari, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1720/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 23(4)Section 24Section 250

loan interest on the ground that supporting evidence such as interest certificates and loan details were not furnished. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide order dated 22.05.2021, determining total income at Rs. 32,36,110/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order

Nalinkant Bhikhalal Pathak, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar

ITA 1711/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) during which the property was referred to District Valuation Officer (DVO) to determine the Fair Market Value of the property as on 10-07-2017. The DVO vide his order dated 07-07-2021 determined the Fair Market Value of the property at Rs.44,75,000/-. Thus the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.24,75,000/- under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act.

Section 143(3)

Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19. I.T.A No. 1711/Ahd/2025

Limbasi Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited, Kheda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3 Nadiad, Nadiad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1676/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

appellate order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax/JCIT (Appeals)-13, Mumbai arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. I.T.A No. 1676/Ahd/2025

The Satara Zilla Krishi Bank Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Satara vs. ACIT, Satara

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2153/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFOREDR.DIPAK P

Shakil Shakur Bijapure, Satara vs. DCIT, Circle, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2105/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2105/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Mr. Manish Holaram Ranglani, Nandurbar vs. ACIT Dhule Circle, Dhule

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated herein above

ITA 1738/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1738/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Manish Holaram Acit Dhule Circle Ranglani, Plot No. 84 Ganpati Nagar, Vs. Taloda Road, Nandurbar- 425412 Maharashtra Pan-Avapr7426G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "ए" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD

Avanti Hydro LLP, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ncc-11(1), Chennai

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

ITA 3125/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3125/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Avanti Hydro Llp, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 114, 2Nd Floor, Velachery Main Income Tax, Road, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. Non-Corporate Circle 11(1), Chennai. [Pan:Absfa8136E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.10.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Raised 5 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is 2

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] on account of unexplained unsettled loans vide assessment order dated 20.03.2024 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Not satisfied by the assessment order, the assessee challenged the same before the ld. CIT(A) and vehemently submits that

Jeeva, Tirupur vs. ITO, Circle 1, Tirupur

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

ITA 2167/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2167/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

ITA 940/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

consequently argued that the assessment order is being void ab initio. 8.1 The learned AR before us argued that assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. section 153A of the Act is time barred and ITA No.939 & 940/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 145 consequently void ab initio. The argument ... further argued that the references later made to the Valuation Officer under section 142A or to the ld. PCIT under 2nd proviso to section 143(3) of the Act are irrelevant for the purpose of exclusion of time, because they were initiated after the expiry of the original limitation period

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

ITA 939/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri M.V Prasad, CA & Shri KS Rajendra KumarFor Respondent: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT &
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 25Section 250Section 8

consequently argued that the assessment order is being void ab initio. 8.1 The learned AR before us argued that assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. section 153A of the Act is time barred and consequently void ab initio. The argument of the learned AR can be broadly divided into ... further argued that the references later made to the Valuation Officer under section 142A or to the ld. PCIT under 2nd proviso to section 143(3) of the Act are irrelevant for the purpose of exclusion of time, because they were initiated after the expiry of the original limitation period

Mohammed Waseem, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1531/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Nadeem Lasani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 143(3A) and section 143(3B), for the assessment year 2018-19. Page 2 of 3 2. In this appeal

Anil Finature Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5640/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Satish Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No

Anil Finature Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5639/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Satish Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No

Itech Cellcom Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5608/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5606, 5607

Itech Cellcom Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5607/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5606, 5607

Itech Cellcom Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 12(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5606/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5606, 5607

Bhinmal Contractors Property & Land Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5.1.1, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5573/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Learned Cit(A). However, She Could Not Attend The Hearings Since She Was On Maternity Leave And, As A Result, The Matter Was Decided In Her Absence. It Was Therefore Submitted That The Appeal May Be Restored To The File Of The Learned Cit(A) For Adjudication On Merits After Granting An Effective Opportunity.

Section 143(3)

assessee against the order dated 30 July 2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, arising from the assessment framed under section 143(3) for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The grievance of the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order ex parte. During