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)

South Eastern Carriers Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 2244/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2009-10 South Eastern Carriers Pvt. Dcit, Circle-8(2), बनाम / Ltd. 10, Phears Lane, 2Nd Ayakar Bhawan, V/S. Floor, Kolkata-12 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No. Aaecs 9360 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri V.N. Purohit, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arindam Bhattacherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 01-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 07-02-2018 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)-11, Kolkata Dated 30.09.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Jcit(Osd), Circle-10, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 08.12.2011 For Assessment Year 2008-09. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1) That The Learned Cit(Appeal) Has Erred Both In Law & Under The Circumstances In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs.16,55,829/- Made By Ao. 2) That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, To Amend Or Withdraw All Or Any Of The Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal At The Time Or Before The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

Section 143(3)

ACIT, Cir-3, Asansol vs. Sri Pravin Kr. Hetamsaria

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.262/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit, Cir-3, Asansol Vs. Sri Pravin Kumar Hetamsaria “Parmar Building”, 54, G.T. Road C/O Pratik Automobiles, Old (West), Asansol – 713304. Hazaribagh Road, Patel Chowk, Ranchi – 8340001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aayph 0545 F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Respondent By :Shri K.M Roy, Fca & P.S. Paul, Fca सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Asansol, In Appeal No.122/C.I.T.(A)/Asl/Cir-3/13-14, Dated 29.01.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 20.03.2013. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “I) “That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(A), Asansol Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,20,85,226/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Unverifiable Creditors/Advances From Customers Shown As Liabilities.” 3. The Brief Facts Apropos This Issue Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On 01.10.2010, Disclosing Total Income At Rs.24,85,430/-. The Assessee’S Case Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act, On 03.05.2011 Accepting The Returned Income. Later, The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S 143(2) Of The Act & The Ao

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri K.M Roy, FCA & P.S. Paul, FCA
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Mp Recycling Co P Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6385/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6385/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit-Cc-1(4) M/S. M.P. Recycling Co. Pvt. Ltd., Room No.902, Pratishta Bhavan, 9Th Floor, 51-53, A-Wing, Mittal Court, J.B. Marg, Vs. Old Cgo Bldg. Annexe, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aadcm 3153 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Y.K. Bhaskar-Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 07/ 02/2018 लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 09/08/2016 Of The Cit(A)- 47,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao)Has Filed Present Appeal.Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Ship Breaking & Is A Trader In Steel Items.It Also Produces Of Steel Pellets.It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/ 09/ 2009.Pursuant To Search Proceedings,The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 20/ 06/ 2012,Declaring Total Income At Rs.3,86,03,702/-.The Completed Assessment,On 27/03/2014, Determining Its Income At Rs.5,95,67,159 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Y.K. Bhaskar-CIT-DR
Section 133Section 143(3)