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)

The Kanyakumari District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd No 2946, Nagercoil vs. Assessing Officer, Tirunelveli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2436/CHNY/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2436/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Kanyakumari District Co- The Assessing Officer Operative Milk Producers Union Vs. Tirunelveli Limited No.2946 Kp Road, Palpannai Nagercoil – 629003 [Pan: Aaaat1033D] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V.Padmanaban, Ca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Manjunath H.S., Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.02.2026 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Ld.Cit(A)"], Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 17.05.2023 Passed U/S.143(3) R.W.S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") By The Assistant

For Appellant: Shri. V.Padmanaban, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath H.S., Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

Devasagayam Arulanandhu, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-1 Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2359/CHNY/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2359/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Devasagayam Arulanandhu The Assistant Commissioner Of 7/3 Subramania Nagar Vs. Income Tax Cross Street, Kodambakkam Circle 1 Ltu Chennai – 600 024. Chennai [Pan: Aeapa6863M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri.Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Manjunath H.S., Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.02.2026 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Ld. Cit(A)"], Arising From The Penalty Order Dated 01.03.2022 Passed U/S.271D Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") By The Assessment Unit

For Appellant: Shri.Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath H.S., Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D