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)

Minakshi, Delhi vs. DCIT, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4242/DEL/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Deputy Minakshi Commissioner Of House No. 11, Gali No. 3, Income Tax, Near Mcd School, Sirsa, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, Sirsa Pur, Delhi- 110042 J.L.N Marg, Minto Road, New Delhi- 110002 Pan: Aizpm5581B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Jatin Mittal, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 01.07.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./Jcit(A) [In Short, The “Cit(A)”], Bhubaneswar’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025-26/1086118418(1), Dated 17.02.2026 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Is Evident At The Outset, During The Course Of Hearing That The Learned Assessing Officer Had Recorded His Reasons To Belief That The Assesee Had Purchased Immovable Property Involving Total Consideration Of Rs. 40,99,500/- In The Relevant Previous Year Whose Source Of Investment Could Not Be Explained. He Thereafter Framed His Reassessment In Issue On 14.12.2019, Inter Alia, Treating The Sum Of Rs. 23 Lakhs Only As Representing The Assessee’S Unexplained Investment Followed By Section 69A Unexplained Cash Deposits Of Rs. 4.75 Lakhs Which Stand Upheld In The Lower Appellate Discussion.

Section 147Section 69A