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)

Abhishek Agral, Giridih vs. Dy. C. I. T, Central Circle, Varanasi

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

ITA 59/VNS/2026[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.58, 59 & 60/Vns/2026 A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Abhishek Agrawal, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surya, Giridih, Jharkhand Central Circle, Varanasi Pan: Bbypa9729A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. O.P. Shukla & Abadhesh Dubey, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2026 O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, All Dated 14.08.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Levied On The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- Ita Nos.58, 59 & 60/Vns/2026 (A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 “1. Because The Ld. Commissioner Of (A) Was Not Justified To Confirm The Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act Rs 10000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer For Non-Compliance Of Notice U/S 142(1) Though The Order Has Been Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. Because The Ld. Commissioner Of (A) Was Not Justified To Placed Reliance On The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Itat Allahabad Bench & Hon'Ble Delhi Itat In Case Of Pratima Agrawal & Akhil Bhartiya Samyak Bhawan Trust. 3. Because, The Appellant Craves For A Right To Raise Any Additional Ground During The Course Of Hearing Of The Case. 4. Because The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Erroneous, Bad In Law & On Facts & Is Liable To Be Deleted.”

For Appellant: Sh. O.P. Shukla, & Abadhesh DubeyFor Respondent: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 202Section 272A(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

Abhishek Agrawal, Giridih vs. Dy. C. I. T., Central Circle, Varanasi

In the result, all three appeals are dismissed

ITA 58/VNS/2026[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Jul 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.58, 59 & 60/Vns/2026 A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Abhishek Agrawal, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surya, Giridih, Jharkhand Central Circle, Varanasi Pan: Bbypa9729A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. O.P. Shukla & Abadhesh Dubey, Advocates Revenue By: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2026 O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, All Dated 14.08.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against Levy Of Penalty Under Section 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Levied On The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- Ita Nos.58, 59 & 60/Vns/2026 (A.Ys. 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 “1. Because The Ld. Commissioner Of (A) Was Not Justified To Confirm The Penalty U/S 272A(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act Rs 10000/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer For Non-Compliance Of Notice U/S 142(1) Though The Order Has Been Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. Because The Ld. Commissioner Of (A) Was Not Justified To Placed Reliance On The Judgment Of Hon'Ble Itat Allahabad Bench & Hon'Ble Delhi Itat In Case Of Pratima Agrawal & Akhil Bhartiya Samyak Bhawan Trust. 3. Because, The Appellant Craves For A Right To Raise Any Additional Ground During The Course Of Hearing Of The Case. 4. Because The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Is Erroneous, Bad In Law & On Facts & Is Liable To Be Deleted.”

For Appellant: Sh. O.P. Shukla, & Abadhesh DubeyFor Respondent: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 202Section 272A(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)

Manish Rasiklal Bawaria, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(2), Rajkot

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 224/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jul 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 224/Rjt/2024 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 ] Manishkumar R Bawaria Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(2), C/O. Eagle Motors Private Limited, Rajkot Vs. Eagle House, Near Moti Tanki Chowk, Aayakar Bhawan Race Course Ring Rajkot-360001, Gujarat Road, Rajkot-360001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achpb7342R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 410/Rjt/2023 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 ] & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 219/Rjt/2024 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 ] Manishkumar R Bawaria Assistant Commissioner Of Income C/O. Eagle Motors Private Limited, Tax, Circle - 1(2), Vs. Eagle House, Near Moti Tanki Chowk, Aayakar Bhawan Race Course Ring Rajkot-360001, Gujarat Road, Rajkot-360001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achpb7342R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2026 :: Order :: Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Same Assessee. Ita No. 410/Rjt/2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144

Manishkumar R Bawaria, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(2), Rajkot

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 219/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 224/Rjt/2024 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 ] Manishkumar R Bawaria Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(2), C/O. Eagle Motors Private Limited, Rajkot Vs. Eagle House, Near Moti Tanki Chowk, Aayakar Bhawan Race Course Ring Rajkot-360001, Gujarat Road, Rajkot-360001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achpb7342R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 410/Rjt/2023 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 ] & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 219/Rjt/2024 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 ] Manishkumar R Bawaria Assistant Commissioner Of Income C/O. Eagle Motors Private Limited, Tax, Circle - 1(2), Vs. Eagle House, Near Moti Tanki Chowk, Aayakar Bhawan Race Course Ring Rajkot-360001, Gujarat Road, Rajkot-360001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achpb7342R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2026 :: Order :: Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Same Assessee. Ita No. 410/Rjt/2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144

Manishkumar R Bawariya, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1(2)(5), Rajkot

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 410/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jul 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 224/Rjt/2024 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 ] Manishkumar R Bawaria Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(2), C/O. Eagle Motors Private Limited, Rajkot Vs. Eagle House, Near Moti Tanki Chowk, Aayakar Bhawan Race Course Ring Rajkot-360001, Gujarat Road, Rajkot-360001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achpb7342R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 410/Rjt/2023 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 ] & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 219/Rjt/2024 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 ] Manishkumar R Bawaria Assistant Commissioner Of Income C/O. Eagle Motors Private Limited, Tax, Circle - 1(2), Vs. Eagle House, Near Moti Tanki Chowk, Aayakar Bhawan Race Course Ring Rajkot-360001, Gujarat Road, Rajkot-360001, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achpb7342R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01/07/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2026 :: Order :: Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Same Assessee. Ita No. 410/Rjt/2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Of The

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

In the result the same cannot be treated as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

ITA 1494/CHNY/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Honourable George George K. & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1494/Chny/2026 ननिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2022-23 Indian Overseas Bank, V. The Principal Commissioner Of Tax Compliance & Payment Cell, Income Tax, 5Th Floor, Annexe Building, Chennai Indian Overseas Bank, No.763, Annasalai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aaaci1223J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. C. Naresh, C.A, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Shiva Srinivas, Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Pcit’), Chennai-4 Dated 03.03.2026 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2022-23. Grounds Of Appeal 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Pcit Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 & Revising The Order Of Ao Passed U/S. 143(3) Dated 22-03-2024 Without Coming To Conclusion The Order Was Erroneous But Merely Directing The Ao To Re- Examine Various Issues. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Pcit Erred In Passing The Order U/S. 263 Without Taking Into Consideration The Specific Submissions Made By Appellant To The Show Cause Notice. Indian Overseas Bank Without Prejudice To Above Grounds On Jurisdiction, Even On Merits -

For Appellant: Mr. C. Naresh, C.A, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 41(4)

S 778 R Pattanam Paccs Ltd., Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward No.2, Namakkal

ITA 4124/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Honourable George George K. & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 4124/Chny/2025 ननिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2020-21 S 778 R Pattanam Primary Agricultural V. Income Tax Officer, Cooperative Credit Society Limited. Ward-2, No.52/13, North Street, Pattanam, Namakkal. Pattanam Po, Rasipuram, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu-637 508. [Pan: Aagas5452B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. V. Sreeraman, C.A (Virtual), Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Beesam Narasing Rao, Jcit Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld.Cit(A)’), Delhi Dated 07.10.2025 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2020-21. Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Appellant Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Addition Made By Ao & Sustained By The Appellate Authority To The Extent Of ₹ 8, 60,000. This Amount As Arrived At By The Ao Is The Difference Between The Balance Under The Head "Borrowings From Others (Schedule 7)" Forming Part Of "Deposits & Borrowings" In The Balance Sheet As At 31 March 2020 & 31 March 2019 As Indicated Below- Particulars 31.3.2020 31.3.2019 S.778 R Pattanam Paccs Ltd.

For Appellant: Mr. V. Sreeraman, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Mr. Beesam Narasing Rao, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 269SSection 68