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)

Sonali Roy, Kolkata vs. PCIT-17, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1329/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Sonali Roy V/S. Pr. Commissioner Of V-5, Block-B, Meena Income Tax-17, Residency, Baguihati, Maniktala, Uttarapan Kolkata-59 Complex, Civic Centre, [Pan No.Afppr 4436 P] Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 10-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Dispute The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-17, Kolkata Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.03.2017 Set Aside The Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2015 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 Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. That The Findings Of Ld. Pr. Clt Kolkata-17 That Assessing Officer First Recorded His Decision Of Referring The Matter To Ova In The Order Sheet & Then Passing Of Order U/S 143(3) Was Recorded Do Not Support The Languages Used In Section 55A Of It Act, 1961 Which Speaks For Actual Reference To Dvo But Not "Decision" To Make Reference. 2. That The Ld. Pr. Cit, Kolkata-17 Having Admitted That Reference To Dvo & Passing Of Order U/S 143(3) Had Been Done On The Same Day Is Wrong & Unjustified In Drawing Conclusion That The Decision For Referring To Dvo Was Taken Before Passing Order U/S 143(3) Without Any Other Supporting Evidence.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

Vivek Barter Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Kolkata

In the result, for statistical purpose, appeal of assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Vivek Barter Pvt Ltd. V/S. Income Tax Officer, 32, Ezra Street, 4Th Floor, Ward-5(4), 8Th Floor, Room No.403, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Kolkata-001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaacv 8952 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sunil Surana, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28-02-2018 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)-2, Kolkata Dated 06.12.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Ito Ward-5(4), 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. The Grounds As Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under:- “1. For That The L. Cit(A) Erred In Deciding The Appeal X Parte Without Allowing The Appellant Any Proper & Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard & In Fact The Last Notice Issued For Hearing On 1.12.2016 Was Never Served On The Appellant. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law Since The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Decided The Issues Ground-Wise In Respect Of The Grounds Raised By The Appellant In The Memo Of Appeal. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law Since The Order Passed Is Not Any Speaking Order Nor The Cit(A) Has Looked Into The Assessment Records & Relevant Materials To Conclude That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Cannot Be Interfered With.

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Divya Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO(Tech), Kolkata

In the result, for statistical purpose, appeal of assessee stands allowed

ITA 109/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Divya Electronics Pvt. V/S. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 32 Ezra Street, 4Th (Tech-2), 3Rd Floor, Floor, Room No.404, Aaykar Bhawan, Kolkata-001 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aaacd 9721 C] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Sunil Surana, Fca, अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28-02-2018 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)-23, Kolkata Dated 25.11.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Ito(Tech-2), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2012-13.Grounds Raised By Assessee Are Reproduced Below:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deciding The Appeal Ex Parte Without Allowing The Appellant Any Proper & Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law Since The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Decided The Issues Ground-Wise In Respect Of The Grounds Raised By The Appellant In The Memo Of Appeal. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law Since The Order Passed Is Not Any Speaking Order Nor The Cit(A) Has Looked Into The Assessment Records & Relevant Materials To Conclude That The Order Of The Ld. Ao Cannot Be Interfered With. 4. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Maintainable.

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

M/S. Bla Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 779/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12 Bla Industries Pvt.Ltd. V/S. Pr. Cit-1, 84, Maker Chambers Iii, Aayakar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Kolkata 400021 [Pan No.Aabcb 3505 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Robin Maheshwari, Aca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tiwari, Cit-Dt ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 08-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28-02--2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) In M.No.Pr. Cit-1/15- 16/U/S263/Bla Industries/2011-12/12629-31 Dated 23/28.03.2016 For Assessment Year 2011-12. Shri Robin Maheshwari, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri A.K. Tiwari, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 2. In This Assessee’S Appeal The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1) For That The Order Of The Ld. Cit Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As Well As In Facts Hence Liable To Be Quashed.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

ACIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Technotrade Impex India P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is treated as allowed for the statistical purposes and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3834/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3834/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Acit-13(3)(2), Vs. M/S Technotrade Impex Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 19/40/C-2, M.K. Road, Seksaria Indl. Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Sv Road, Malad (W), Mumbai - 400064 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct1000G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & प्रत्याक्षेप सं /Co No. 159/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3834/Mum/2016) (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Technotrade Impex India Vs. The Acit-13(3)(2), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, 19/40/C-2, Aayakar Bhavan, Seksaria Industrial Estate, M.K. Road, Chincholi Bunder Road, Mumbai - 400020 Off Sv Road, Malad (W), Mumbai - 400064 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct1000G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri H.N. Singh ( Cit Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivram & Ms. Neelam (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Are The Appeal & Cross Objection Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.03.2016 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram & Ms. Neelam (AR)For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh ( CIT DR)
Section 133Section 133ASection 143