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 32(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Sangeeta Raj Nair, Mumbai

ITA 1200/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1200/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer-32(3)(3) Smt. Sangeeta Raj Nair Room No.105, 1St Floor Yash Communication, Shop No.1 C-11, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Vs. Ami Kailash Bldg., Ic Colony Kurla Complex, Bandra East Borivali (W),Mumbai-400 103. Mumbai-400 051. Pan:Adtpn 1654 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri V. Justin-Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Smt. Vaishali Mehta सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2018 लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य, राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Order ,Dated 11/01/2016 Of The Cit(A)- 44,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed Present Appeal.The Assessee,An Individual,Engaged In The Business Of Selling Recharge- Coupens Of Mobile Companies & Making Bill Payment Of Mobile Companies & Various Utilities,Filed Her Return Of Income On 21/01/2012 Declaring Total Income At Rs.5 Lakhs. The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed Assessment On 11/3/2014, U/S. 143(3) Of The Act,Determin- Ing Her Income At Rs.49.60 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Smt. Vaishali MehtaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin-CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 44A

ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Sidhartha Engineering Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 332/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.332/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S Sidhartha Engineering Bhubaneswar Limited, Plot No.1389, Gandamunda Bhubaneswar-751030 स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aadcs 1603 H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Citdr निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/03/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/03/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 31.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified On Facts & In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.87,54,592/- Made By The Ao Considering Reasonable Rate Of Net Profit I.E. 7.59% Of The Turnover Of The Assessee. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & Having Regard To The Findings Given By The Ao In The Assessment Order, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Upheld The Above Addition Made By The Assessing Officer. 3. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend Or Add Any Other Ground That May Be Considered Necessary In Course Of The Appeal Proceedings. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Is A Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Electrical Contractor & Filed Return Of Income On 29.09.2012 With Total Income Of Rs.1,51,74,221/-. Subsequently The Case

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, CITDR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Vijay Lal, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 120/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.120/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Vijay Lal Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), C/O-Vijay Motors-Mahindra Bhubaneswar Division, Plot No.27, Near Chintamaniswar Square & Icici Bank, Cuttack Road, Bhubaneswar-751006 स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaepl 8429 N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/03/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 23.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. That The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,67,73,661/- To The Returned Total Income As Loss Of Stock By Fire As Unexplained Expenses, Which Is Contrary To The Evidence On Record, Rules & Facts, Hence The Same Is Liable To Be Deleted. 2. That The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,67,73,661/- To The Returned Total Income As Loss Of Stock By Fire Being Unexplained Expenses, Which Is Contrary To The Evidence On Record, Rules & Facts, Hence The Same Is Liable To Be Deleted. 3. That The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred Both In Law & In Fact By Making An Addition Of Rs.4,32,692/- To The Returned Total Income As Goods Delivery Expenses Being Unexplained

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, CITDR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A