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)

ITO, WD-24(4), Hooghly vs. Smt Sarmila Ghosh, Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 832/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 738/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit Cir 24 Hooghly..............................…………………………………...............................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road, Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101 Dr. Kalidas Ghosh...……………………………………………………....................................Respondent Court Road, Arambagh, Hooghly – 712 601. [Pan: Adipg 4580 E] I.T.A. No. 832/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito Ward 24 (4) Hooghly..............................…………………………………....................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road, Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101 Smt. Sarmila Ghosh...…………………………………………………….................................Respondent Court Road, Natunbazar, Arambagh, Hooghly – 712 601. [Pan: Adipg 4579 E] Appearances By: Shri Nicolus Murmu, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 06, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 22, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am These Two Appeals In The Case Of Two Assesses Are Preferred Against Two Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) – 6, Kolkata Dated 15.12.2016 & 16.02.2016. As The Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Is Common, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By A Single Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience

Section 143(3)Section 148

ACIT, Cir-24, Kolkata, Hooghly vs. Dr. Kalidas Ghosh, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 738/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 738/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit Cir 24 Hooghly..............................…………………………………...............................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road, Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101 Dr. Kalidas Ghosh...……………………………………………………....................................Respondent Court Road, Arambagh, Hooghly – 712 601. [Pan: Adipg 4580 E] I.T.A. No. 832/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito Ward 24 (4) Hooghly..............................…………………………………....................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road, Khadina More, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 101 Smt. Sarmila Ghosh...…………………………………………………….................................Respondent Court Road, Natunbazar, Arambagh, Hooghly – 712 601. [Pan: Adipg 4579 E] Appearances By: Shri Nicolus Murmu, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 06, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 22, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am These Two Appeals In The Case Of Two Assesses Are Preferred Against Two Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) – 6, Kolkata Dated 15.12.2016 & 16.02.2016. As The Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Is Common, The Same Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By A Single Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience

Section 143(3)Section 148

ACIT, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Techno Doors Private Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 16/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 16/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 & C.O. No. 55/Chny/2018[In I.T.A. No. 16/Chny/2018] The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Techno Doors Private Limited, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Vs. Plot No. L-1, Sipcot Industrial Parks, New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Mahatma Mambakkam, Pondur “A” Village, Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Sriperumpudur Taluk, Chennai 600 034. Kancheepuram 602 106. [Pan:Aacct4786F] (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit Assessee By : Shri K. Senguttuvan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai Dated 25.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. Besides Challenging Deletion Of Disallowance Of Exhibition Expenses At ₹.25,78,256/-, The Revenue Also Challenged Deletion Of Addition Of ₹.6,15,26,406/- Made At The Rate Of 5% To 2

For Appellant: Shri K. Senguttuvan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 143(3)