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)

Kashmiri Lal Constructions Pvtltd, Uttarakhand vs. DCIT Central Circle Haldwani, Haldwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 69/DDN/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun25 May 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Kashmiri Lal Constructions Vs Dcit Pvt.Ltd., 825, Gandhi Chowk, Central Circle Ranikhet Sadar Bazar, Haldwani S.O. Ranikhet, Almora, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-263645 Pan-Aacck1932E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Kalrav Mehratra, Adv., Shri Puspak Garg, Ca & Shri Shubham Bansal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Dated 19.12.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Lucknow-3 [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit (A), Haldwani/10004/2017-18 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 27.03.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Years 2015-16. 2. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Prayed That The Assessee Does Not Want To Pursue The Present Appeal Therefore, The Captioned Appeal May Be Permitted To Be Withdrawn. An Application Dated 25.05.2026 Filed By The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Company, Is Also Placed On Record. The Relevant Contents Of The Application Are Reproduced As Under:- “Kindly Refer To The Appeal Filed By The Appellant In The Case Of Kashmiri Lal Constructions Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Haldwani Bearing Ita No. 69/Ddn/2026 For Assessment Year 2015- 2016, Which Is Pending For Adjudication Before The Hon'Ble Bench. The Appellant Respectfully Submits That The Appellant Does Not Wish To Pursue The Aforesaid Appeal Further & Therefore Seeks Permission Of The Hon'Ble Bench To Withdraw The Same. It Is, Therefore, Most Respectfully Prayed That The Aforesaid Appeal May Kindly Be Treated As Withdrawn.”

Section 143(3)Section 250

Maya and Co, Almora vs. Circle 2(1)(1), Haldwani

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

ITA 6/DDN/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun25 May 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Vs Circle-2(1)(1) Maya & Co. C/O-Anand Singh Bisht, Sabji Gaulapar Mandi, Talla Danya, Almora, Haldwani, Uttarakhand-263601 Haldwani, Pan-Abqfm7518J Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Prashant Kackar, Ca Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.05.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 25.05.2026 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 18.07.2025 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) Dated 15.03.2024 For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. It Is Observed That The Appeal Was Filed Delayed By 98 Days. Before Us, An Application For Condonation Of Delay Alongwith An Affidavit Is As Filed. In The Said Petition, It Is Stated That Assessee Has Changed The Counsel & For Collecting The Details & Records, The Delay Was Occurred In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. It Is Thus Submitted That The Delay Was Neither Intentional Nor Willful & The Circumstances Are Beyond The Control Of The Assessee Thus It Is Requested To Condone The Delay.

Section 143(3)