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)

Marigold Niketan Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution

ITA 249/KOL/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2009-10 Marigold Niketan Pvt. V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ltd.,Amit Jain, M/S M. Ward-9(1) Jain & Associates 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Block- E, 4Th Floor, Room No.15A, Kolkata-001 [Pan No.Aafcm 4272 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata’S Order Dated 15.11.2016, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Today When The Case Was Called For Hearing None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Was Any Application For An Adjournment Filed By The Assessee In Spite Of Issue Of Notice By Rpad. It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Serious In Prosecuting This Appeal. Hence The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non-Prosecution. For This View We Find Support From The Following Decisions:- "1. In The Case Of Cit Vs 8.N.Bhattacharjee & Another, Reported In 118 Itr 461 [Relevant Pages 477 & 478] Wherein Their Lordships Have Held That: "The Appeal Does Not Mean Merely Filing Of The Appeal But Effectively Pursuing It."

Section 143(3)

M/S Masum Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-14(3). Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1238/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S Masum Tradelink Pvt V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ltd. P-107, Unique Park, Ward-14(3), Aayakar Behala, Kolkata-700 034 Bhawan, Poorva, 110, [Pan No.Aahcm 2616 A] Shanti Pally, Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Jhjharia, Advocate & अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Sen, Advocate Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata’S Order Dated 02.02.2017 Passed In Case No. 224/Cit(A)-5/W-14(3)/15-16, Ex Parte Affirming The Assessing Officer’S Action Adding Share Premium ₹10,22,50,000/-, U/S 68 In Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2015, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Come To Relevant Facts. There Is No Dispute That The Assessing Officer Had Framed The Impugned Assessment In Assessee’S Case On 25.03.2015 Adding The Share Application / Share Premium Money Of ₹10,22,50,000/- On Account Of Its Alleged Failure In Proving Identity Coupled With Genuineness & Creditworthiness Thereof During The Course Of Scrutiny.

Section 143(3)Section 264Section 264(4)Section 68

ITO, WD-40(1), Kolkata vs. Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1038/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 Income Tax Officer, V/S. Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, Ward-40(1), 3 Govt. 6, A.L. Daw Road, Place (West), Kolkata-700 137 Kolkata-700 001 [Pan No. Aucps 5961 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent S.M.S.Tauheed, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12. Kolkata’S Order Dated 10.02.2016 Passed In Case No.126/Cit(A)-12/Kol/Wd-40(1)/2014-15 Partly Restricting The Assessing Officer’S Action Disallowing / Adding Assessee’S Claim Of Truck / Lorry Hire Payments Of ₹46,70,337 To 4,76,240/- Thereby Granting Relief Of ₹41,94,097/- In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. We Notice At The Outset That Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion Has Summarized All Relevant Particulars Of Assessee’S Claim As Well As Assessing Officer’S Findings As Under:- “3. The Ao Disallowed Payment Of Rs.46,70,337/- Made To Various Parties On Account Of Transportation Charges On The Grounds That The Assessee Was Not Able To Discharge Their Onus. The Assessee Had Claimed Certain Expenses As Transportation Charges Which Were Paid To Various Parties. All Supporting Documents Were Produced

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)