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)

Pinakin Arjunbhai Patel, Valsad vs. ITO, Ward-7, Vapi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 404/SRT/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jul 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 404/Srt/2026 [ िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 ] Pinakin Arjunbhai Patel, Income Tax Officer, Village-Porival, Patel Faliya/ Ward-7, Room No. 810, 8Th Floor, Vs. Taluka- Dharampur/ Dist.- Fortune Tower-Ii, Above Tbz, Valsad, Gujarat-396051 Daman Road, Chala, Vapi, Gujarat -396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Arbpp8927F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2026 :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) By Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi, Dated 25.09.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, On 20.11.2018. 2. When The Matter Was Called For Hearing, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee At The Outset Submitted That The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Belatedly By 109 Days, Before The Tribunal. The Learned Counsel Adverted My Attention To The Affidavit Filed In This Regard Citing Reasons For Condonation Of Delay & Urged For A Benign View & Sought Condonation Of Delay Of 109 Days In Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

Sudndaram Rajasundaram, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with above factual and legal observations

ITA 3932/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jul 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Honourable George George K & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3932/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2014-15 Sundaram Rajasundaram V. Deputy Commissioner Of No. G 02, Akshaya Level Up, Income Tax, No.53/54, Sterling Road, Central Circle-2(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. Chennai. [Pan: Aeopr1964C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. T. Vasudevan, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Shiva Srinivas, Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Chennai- 19, Dated 28.10.2025, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2014-15. Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dismissing The Appeal Is Contrary To Law, Erroneous & Unsustainable On The Facts Of The Case. 2. The Ld.Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 154 Dated 30.10.2019 Reworking The Levy Of Interests Under Section 234A & 234B Of The Act. Sundaram Rajasundaram 3. The Ld. Cit (A) Failed To Appreciate That The Levy Of Interests U/S. 234A & 234B Was Considered In The Earlier Order U/S.154 Passed On 31.3.2018 & Hence There Is No Mistake Apparent Warranting Rectification Of The Order.

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 116Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 200ASection 206CSection 234A