← 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)

Jks Abasan LLP, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 594/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Jks Abasan Llp…………….....……..………………….……….……….……Appellant P-4, Black Lanen, Kol-700012. [Pan: Aalfj9634N] Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata..…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 29, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.03.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. At The Very Outset, The Assessee Has Challenged By Taking Legal Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Dated 21.08.2018 Is Not In Conformity With The Instruction Issued By Cbdt Instruction No.1/2011 Dated 31.01.2011 & Since The Notice Issued U/S 143(2) Is Defective, The Assessment Order Is Void & Fit To Be Quashed. The Ld. Counsel Further Submits That Since Legal Issue Goes To The Root Of The Matter, Therefore, The Same May Be Admitted For Adjudication. After Considering The Facts Of Jks Abasan Llp The Case & Keeping In View The Decisions Of The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd V. Cit [1998] 229 Itr 383, We Are Inclined To Admit The Legal Ground For Adjudication.

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1180/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, Ward-12(1), Kolkata…..…………..………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd..……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 62A, Hazra Road, Kol-700019. [Pan: Aaccm0280B] Appearances By: Shri Mohit Mrinal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri N S Saini, Ar & Priyanka Salarpuria, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.09.2020 Of The Cit(Appeals)-4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 1075 Days & The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. The Contents Of The Said Affidavit Are As Under: Milestone Finstock Pvt. Ltd

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 73

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Singhvi Developers, Vellore

In the result, both appeals of Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 974/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.648/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Singhvi Developers, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 5/3, Kasi Chetty Street, Income Tax, Ambur 635 803. Central Circle 3(3), Chennai. [Pan:Acdfs5183R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.974/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Singhvi Developers, Income Tax, No. 5/3, Kasi Chetty Street, Central Circle 3(3), Ambur 635 803. Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Department By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 20, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

added the same on account of unaccounted income to the total income of the assessee vide his order dated 31.07.2021 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. As aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). We find that

Singhvi Developers, Ambur vs. DCIT Central Circle 3(3), Chennai

In the result, both appeals of Revenue and the assessee are dismissed

ITA 648/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.648/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Singhvi Developers, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 5/3, Kasi Chetty Street, Income Tax, Ambur 635 803. Central Circle 3(3), Chennai. [Pan:Acdfs5183R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.974/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Singhvi Developers, Income Tax, No. 5/3, Kasi Chetty Street, Central Circle 3(3), Ambur 635 803. Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Department By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 20, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

added the same on account of unaccounted income to the total income of the assessee vide his order dated 31.07.2021 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. As aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). We find that

Vpm Trades, Gudiyattam vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Vellore

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

ITA 1218/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1218/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vpm Trades, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 24, New Street, Income Tax, Gudiyatam 636 202. Circle I, Vellore. [Pan:Aaafv1917D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R.K.V. Sundar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 8 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R.K.V. Sundar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 68

income of ₹.31,87,500/- and the Accessing Officer determined the same at ₹.91,06,396/- vide his order dated 30.11.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. As aggrieved by the said the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before