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)

Alloy Steel Emporium Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kol., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 286/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Alloy Steel Emporium Pvt. Ltd..................................………………………………….Appellant 10, Clive Row, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Aacca 5738 N] Ito, Ward 4(3) Kolkata...................…………………………………………….....................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri D.C. Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 29, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 20, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 17, Kolkata Dated 10.06.2016 & Grounds Raised Therein Read As Under: “1. That The Assessment Order Dated 04.03.2014 Framed U/S 147/143(3) Is Void & Nullity In The Eyes Of Law As There Are No Recorded Reasons To Belief That The Income Chargeable To Tax Escaped Assessment. 2. That Without Prejudice To Ground No 1 Stated Above, The Recorded Reasons Are Invalid & Improper & As Such, The Assessment Framed Vide Order Dated 04.03.2014 Is Bad In Law In The Eye Of Law. 3. That The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 30,66,273/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Bogus Purchase.”

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Ritesh Kumar Boyed, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 40, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2327/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 2327/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Ritesh Kumar Boyed.................................………………………………………............Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, 2Nd Floor, Suite 213, Kolkata – 700 069. [Pan: Aeapb 7186 C] Acit Circle 40...................……………………………………………....................................Respondent 3, Govt. Place, Kolkata – 700 001. Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 20, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata Dated 18.07.2017. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Dealing In Auto Parts Under The Name & Style Of His Proprietary Concern M/S. Surendra Motors. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By Him On 29.09.2008 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 2,77,976/-. A Survey Under Section 133A Was Carried Out In The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 25.01.2008. As Found From The Documents Impounded During The Course Of Survey, Sales Were Recorded To The Tune Of Rs. 2,46,23,315/- Whereas Sales Reflected In The Audited Profit & Loss Account Of The Assessee Were Only To The Tune Of Rs. 2,07,65,620/-. Since This Difference Of Rs. 38,57,695/- Could Not Be Explained By The Assessee

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 194ISection 40Section 69C

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. M D Garments Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross- objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2146/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 2146/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 D.C.I.T, Central Cir – 2(1) Kolkata.........................................................................Appellant 3Rd Floor,Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, E.M. By Pass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700107 M/S. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd. …………………………………………………………………Respondent 156, M.G. Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aadcm 5555 C] C.O. No. 38/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2146/Kol/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd. ……………………………………………………………Cross-Objector 156, M.G. Road, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aadcm 5555 C] D.C.I.T, Central Cir – 2(1) Kolkata....................................................................Respondent 3Rd Floor,Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, E.M. By Pass, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700107 Appearances By: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri R.P. Agarwal, Sr. Counsel & Shri Nirav Sheth, Aca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 25, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 20, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 20, Kolkata Dated 18.07.2017 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 38/Kol/2018. 2 I.T.A. No. 2146/Kol/2017 & C.O. No. 38/Kol/2018 Assessment Year 2009-10 M/S. M.D. Garments Pvt. Ltd.

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C