← 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)

Shahnawaz Ahmed Chaudhary, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 58(2), Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2773/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Shahnawaz Ahmed Chaudhary, Vs Ito, 162-J-Extension, Ward-58(2), Gali No.5, New Delhi Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Agmpc8667K (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Manaktala, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit (A), Delhi-19/10373/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 07.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-58(2), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, We Find That Additions U/S 69C Of The Act Were Made On Account Of Unexplained Source Of Funds Utilized To Make Payment Of Credit Card Bills. However, The Assessee Was Unable To File Relevant Evidences To Corroborate Submissions Made Before The Ao That These Payments Were Made By The Customers/Clients Directly Towards His Credit Card Bills & The Ld. Counsel Byway Of Certain Evidences, Now Made Available In The Paper Book, Drew Our Attention To The Fact That The Sources Are Completely Disclosed & Well Explained. However, Neither The Same Were Filed Before The Ld.Cit(A) Nor Before Us As Additional Evidences. 3, Thus, For Ends Of Justice, The Assessee Is Given An Opportunity To File The Additional Evidences Before The Ld.Cit(A) Which Shall Be Considered For Admission In Accordance With The Law And, There Upon, The Appeal Be Decided Afresh By The Ld.Cit(A). Accordingly, The Appeal Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Manaktala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN