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)

Ritesh Kumar Boyed, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 42(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2523/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2523/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 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] I.T.O. Ward-42(3), Kolkata..……..………….…………………………………………….………..Respondent 18, Rabindra Sarani Poddar Court 4Th Floor Room No. 23 Kolkata Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Addl. Cit, Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 21St, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 25Th , 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 18/07/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Confirming The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 154/143(3) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. After Hearing Rival Contentions, I Hold As Follows: The Only Issue Before Me Is The Arithmetical Error Committed While Disallowing Interest As Loan Processing Fee Of Rs.4,10,734.81/-, Which Resulted In Double Disallowance. I Find That At Page 4 Last Para, The Assessing Officer Has Specifically Observed As Follows:- “The Amount Of Rs.4,10,734.81/-, Has Not Been Incorporated In Your Audited Profit & Loss Account.” 2.1. I Find That The Assessing Officer Has Started The Computation Of Income At Page 5 Of His Order, By Taking The Net Profit As Disclosed In The Profit & Loss

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Shri Kamal Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T, Cir-53, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2210/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2009-10 Shri Kamal Agarwal V/S. Acit, Circle-53, Prop. Kashi Sales Aayakar Bhawan Corpration, 30-D Diamond (South) 2, Gariahat Harbour Road, Kolkata-60 Road(S), Kolkata-68 [Pan No.Adepa 7609 J] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 23-05-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25-05-2018 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)-Xxxiii, Kolkata’S Order Dated 25.03.2013, In Case No.125/Cit(A)-Xxxiii/Acit, Cir 53, Kol/11-12, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Hereinafter ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges From Assessee’S Pleadings That The Its Solitary Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’(S) Action Disallowing Commission Paid Of ₹18,61,052/- To Seven Parties. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion On The Above Sole Issue Reads:- 5. Ground No. 4 & 5 Relate To Addition Of Rs. 18,61,052/-. The Appellant Had Claimed Commission Of Rs. 18,61,052/- Shown To Be Paid To Seven Persons. The Assessing Officer Called For Details Such As Copy Of Agreement, Copy Of Tds Return, Pan Of Recipients & Details Of Relevant Sales. He Issued Summons U/S 131 To All The Agents. However, None Of Them Complied On The

Section 131Section 143(3)