Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.270

Section 143(3) falls under section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 270 (Assessment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 270 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 143(3) is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 of the 75,154 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

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.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Judgments on Section 143(3)

Discovery Communications India, Gurgaon vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1977/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Discovery Communication India, Vs Jcit 125-B, Somdatt Chamber-1, Special Range-3, 5 Bikaji Cama Place, C. R. Building, New Delhi-110066. I.P. Estate, Pan-Aaacd4746K New Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv. Shri Rohan Khare, Adv. & Shri Priyam Bhatnagar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19.08.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 07.02.2017 Passed By Ld. Jcit, Special Range-3, New Delhi U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”], In Conformity With The Directions Dated 20.12.2016 Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel-1, New Delhi (‘The Drp’) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Subsidiary Of Discovery Channel Mauritius Pvt. Ltd. & Acted As An Agent For Its Associated Enterprise (“Ae”) Being Discovery Asia Llc (“Dallc”) & Animal Planet Asia Llc (“Apllc”) & Is Engaged In The Following Activities:- A. Exclusively Market & Distribute The Channels To Users; B. Exclusively Market & Sell Commercial Airtime On The Channel To Third-Party Advertisers In India; & C. Providing Services In Relation To Sourcing Or Production Of Program Contents In India.

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Harpreet Singh Makhija, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITSSA 137/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Aug 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumaras “” It(Ss)A No.137/Ahd/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Harpreet Singh Makhija, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 14, Kadamb Bungalows, Ward – 3(3)(2), Near Arbindo Society, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Vastrapur, Behind Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad – 380 054. Near Panjarapole Cross Roads, (Gujarat) Ambawadi, [Pan – Amfpm 8575 M] Ahmedabad – 380 014. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri Kiran Unavekar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.06.2026 आदेश/O R D E R This Matter Has Been Placed Before Me Asunder The Provisions Of Section 255(4) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"), Pursuant To A Reference Made By The Hon'Ble, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, On Account Of A Difference Of Opinion Between The Ld. & The Ld.Constituting The Ahmedabad Bench In The Captioned Appeal Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Hon'Ble, Itat, Vide Order Dated 21.04.2026, Has Referred The Matter To The(Az) For Expressing Opinion Under Section 255(4) Of The Act. Pursuant Thereto, Notices Were Issued To Both The Parties. The Matter Was Initially Fixed For Hearing On 27.04.2026 & Was Finally Heard On 17.06.2026. Shri Sakar Sharma, Ld. Authorized Representative, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Whereas Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Cit (Dr), Represented The Revenue.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 255(4)Section 69