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)

Poonam Bhotika, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 665/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Poonam Bhotika V/S. Income Tax Officer, 161/1 M.G. Road, Rom Wrd-43(1), 3, Govt. No.26, Kolkata-700 007 Place (W), [Pan No.Aqsps 2982 D] Kolkata-700 001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G. Hangshing, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 25-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Disputing The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-15, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 22.03.2017 By Which The Ld. Pr. Cit Set Aside The Assessment Order Dated 02.03.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2012-13 With A Direction To Re-Do The Assessment In Respect Of Issue Therein. The Ground Raised By The Assessee In The Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Tribunal Read As Under:- “1. That The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Kolkata-15 Is Not Justified Set Aside The Assessment Order For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Dated 02.03.2015 Passed By The Ito Ward-43(1), Kolkata Is Found To Be Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On The Ground That The Allowability Of Loss In Future Option As An Admissible Business Expenditure Remained To Be Seen By The Ao During The Assessment Proceedings Although Prime Facie Evidence Against Its Allowability Was

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 43(5)(d)

Munshi Mini Rice Mill, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kolkata, Hooghly

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 146/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Munshi Mini Rice Mill V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O S.N. Ghosh & Ward-2(2), Aayakar Associates, Advocates, Bhawan, G.T. Road, “Sebenbrothers” Lodge, Khadina More, P.O. P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S. Chinsurah, P.S/. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly, Chinsurahk,, Dist. Pin 712105 Hooghly, Pin 712 101 [Pan No.Aaffm 1149 K] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 28-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata Dated 09.01.2017. Assessment Was Framed By Ito Ward-24(2), Hooghly U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 27.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Penalty Levied By Ao U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Act Vide Dated 112.11.2014. Grounds Raised By Assessee Are Reproduced Below:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata Failed To Appreciate That None Of The Condition Precedent Required To Be Satisfied For The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S.274 Read With S. 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Existed And/Or Have Been Complied With And/Or Fulfilled In The Instant Case By The Ld. Income Tax

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Khadimindia Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 108/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Dcit, Circle-8(1), V/S. M/S Khadim India Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th 6, Kankaria Estate, Little Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Russel Street,Kolakta-71 Sq. Kolkta-69 [Pan No.Aabck 3341 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Subash Agarwala, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Kolkata Dated 30.11.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1),, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 20.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2012-13. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Follows:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.34,72,493/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Expenditure Under The Head Of Stamp Duty & Registration Charges. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.10,94,854/-On Account Of Disallowance Of Claim Of Depreciation At The Rate Of 60% On Asset Namely Scanner & Router. 3. That The Appellant Reserves The Right To Amend, Alter Or Add To Any Ground(S) Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 143(3)

DCIT, Cir-4(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Sublime Agro Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 574/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Dcit, Circle-4(2), 4Th V/S. M/S Sublime Agro Ltd., Floor, Room No.11B, 7/1, Lord Sinha Road, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Room No. 201-203, Chowringhee Square, Kolkta-71 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aaecs 1804 P] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 20-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata Dated 02.01.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-4 Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 13.01.2014 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Grounds Raised By Revenue Reproduced As Under:- “1. Whether On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Allowing The Deduction U/S. 80Ie, When The Primary Condition Of Addition Of Plant & Machinery To Qualify For Substantial Expansion Had Not Been Substantiated By The Assessee. 2. Whether On The Fats & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Had Erred In Allowing Depreciation & Additional Depreciation To Plant & Machinery Although There Had Been Factual Evidence That The Relevant Plant & Machinery Had Not Been Put To Use During The Year Under Consideration. 3. That The Appellant Craves For Leave To Add, Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 80I

ACIT, Circle-31, Kolkata vs. M/S Agro Life Science Corporation, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1863/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Acit, Circle-31, V/S. M/S Agro Life Science 10B, Middleton Row, Corporation, Fmc Fortuna 4Th Floor, Kolkata-71 Building, 234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-20 [Pan No.Aakfa 5781 A] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sanjeev Kadel, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 08-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Kolkata Dated 21.06.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-31, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.02.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Reads As Follows:- “1.”That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Allowing The Amount Of Rs.2,34,84,055/- & Rs.82,192/- On Account Of Excise Duty Refund & Interest Subsidy Respectively As Capital Receipt.” 2. That The Ld. Cit(Appeals)Has Not Taken Into Account The Verdict In The Following Cases: A) Sehanay Steel Pres Works Ltd. & Ors Vs. Cit (1997) 228 Itr 253 B) Kesoram Industries & Cotton Ltd. Vs. Cit (1991) 191 Itr 518

Section 143(3)

ACIT, Ltu-1, Kolkata vs. M/S Hindustan Copper Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1616/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Acit, Ltu-1, V/S. M/S Hindustan Copper 6Th Floor, Large Tax Ltd., Tamra Bhawan, Payer Unit, 180, Ashutosh Chowdhury Shantipally, Kolkata-107 Avenue, Kolkata-19 [Pan No.Aaach 7409 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 16-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Kolkata Dated 11.05.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Ltu-1, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 12.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Grounds Raised By Revenue Reads As Under:- “1(A) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit Erred In Law & On Facts While Holding That Club Subscription Fees Were Annual Subscriptions Including Renewal Of Corporate Club Member Fees Whereas The Club Subscription Fees Were Actually Capital Expenditure Amounting To Rs.18,75,767/- & Were Never Claimed By Assessee In Earlier Years As Revenue Expenditure. (B) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts While Holding That The Club Subscription Fees Were Revenue In Nature & Not Capital Expenditure Relying On The Decision Of Dcit Vs. Makers Development Services Ltd. [1994] 75 Taxman 125 (Bom).

Section 143(3)

M/S Mirik Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Karnataka vs. PCIT, Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1059/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 M/S Mirik Commercial Pvt. V/S. Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd., 15B, Everest House, Income Tax, Central, 46C, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-2 Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aaecm 1753 F] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G. Hanghing, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 24-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Disputing The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.03.2014 Who Set Aside The Assessment Order Date 04.03.2014 For Assessment Year 2011-12 With A Direction To Re-Do The Assessment In Respect Of Issue Therein. Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Shri G. Hanghing, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. That The Ld. Principal Cit, Kolkata-2 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S. 263 Of The Act In Order To Impose His Own Views On The Ld. Ao. By Holding That The Order Passed By The

Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

DCIT, Cir-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S the Braithwaite Burn & Jessop Construction Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 994/KOL/2015[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 Dcit, Circle-1(2), V/S. M/S The Braithwaite Burn Aayakar Bhawan, Room & Jessop Construction Co. 14, 7Th Floor, P-7, Ltd. 27, R.N. Mukherjee Chowrnghee Square, Road, Kolkata-700 001 Kol-700 09 [Pan No.Aaact 9760 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata Dated 20.03.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-1, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 31.08.2006 For Assessment Year 2004-05. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.15,74,43,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Prior Period Expenses In Respect Of Closing Stock Of Raw Materials & Work In Progress. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Modify The Grounds Of Appeal During The Course Of Hearing Proceedings Of This Case.”

Section 143(3)