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)

M/S Akshat Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd., Chandauli vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 1, Varanasi

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

ITA 81/VNS/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi29 Jun 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Akshat Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd., A-4A, Industrial Area, Circle-1, Varanasi Ramnagar, Industrial Area, Chandauli, Basant Nagar, S.O. 221110, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aakcs3432K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Arvind Shukla, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.06.2023, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) For The A.Y. 2013-14, Passed On 30.03.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Appreciating The Merits Of The Case & Also Without Giving Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. Because The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Order Was Passed By An Officer Without Having Proper Jurisdiction Over The Case & Hence Was Void Ab-Initio.

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Koushlendra Tewari, CIT DR
Section 131(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

Primco Private Limited, Patna vs. Circle 1, Patna

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 518/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2017-18 Primco Private Limited Vs. Circle-1, Patna 206-B, Ashiana Plaza, Budh Bihar-800001 Marg, Patna, Bihar-800001 [Pan: Aaacp4211B] Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Ravi Kant, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.06.2026 O R D E R Per Yogesh Kumar U.S.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [“The Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short], Dated 19.09.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”, For Short) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, An Assessment Order Came To Be Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 23.10.2019 By Making Certain Additions. Aggrieved By The Assessment Order Dated 23.10.2019, Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 19.09.2025, Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. Primco Private Limited; A.Y: 2017-18 As Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Dated 19.09.2025, Assessee Filed The Present Appeal. 3. None Appeared For The Assessee. Considering The Issue Involved In The Present Appeal, We Deem It Fit To Decide The Appeal On Hearing The Ld. Dr & Perused The Material Available On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250