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)

Tabassum, Bareilly vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bareilly

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

ITA 722/LKW/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Jun 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2023-24 Tabassum, Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 2175, Cb, Ganj Near Mazar Sharif, Income Tax-1, Bareilly-New Bakar Nagar, Bareilly, U.P. Pan: Baxpt4031N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.06.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 17.07.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2023-24 On 18.03.2025. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law As The Rejected Books Of Account Of The Appellant On Surmises & Conjectures By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 145(3) Of The Income Tax Act. The Ld. Ao Exercised His Jurisdiction Arbitrarily & Capriciously. The Power Has Not Been Exercised Judicially & Is Violating The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law As The Ld. A.O Ignored The Business Model Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250

M/S. La Vie Estate LLP, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3028/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3028/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 La Vie Estate Llp The Assistant Commissioner Of No.33 Rutland Towers, Vs. Income-Tax, Central Cir.1(2) Shafee Mohammed Road Chennai. Off Greams Road Chennai – 600 006 [Pan:Aahfl2231R ] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Rakesh Joshi, Ca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Dated 27.06.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Chennai-18, (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) For The Assessment Year (A.Y) 2019-20 Against The Order U/S.153A R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Passed By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Chennai (In Short ‘Ao’), Dated 30.09.2021. :-2-: Ita. No.3028 /Chny/2025

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh Joshi, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 68