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)

M/S Sanklap Tracom (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-5(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 781/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.781/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S Sanklap Tracom(P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-5(3), Kolkata 87, Keshab Chandra Sen P-7, Chowringhee Square, Street, Kolkata – 700 009. Kolkata– 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakcs 5576 L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajeev Kumar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2,Kolkata,In Appeal No.1602/Cit(A)-2/2014-15, Dated 20.01.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Sections143(3)/263/143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 24.03.2014. 2. At The Outset, Itself The Ld.Ar Pointed Out That The Impugned Order Is An Ex Parte Order & Therefore, The Assessee Could Not Plead His Case Before The Ld. Cit(A) , He Prayed That The Matter May Be Remanded Back To The File Of The Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication. The Ld. Dr Did Not Have Any Objection If The Matter Is Remitted Before The Ld. Cit(A). We Note That The Assessment Was Carried Out Under Sections 143(3)/263/143(3)/147, Of The Act & The Impugned Order Is An Ex Parte Order. We Do Not Wish To Make Any Comments On The Merits Of The Grounds Raised By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT

S. H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 652/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.651 & 652/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) S.H. Mumtazuddin Times (P) Vs. Dcit, Cir-5(1), Kolkata. Ltd. Aaykarbhawan, P-7, 4, Radha Bazar Street, Kolkata Chowringhee Square, – 700 001. Kolkata – 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aakcs 6915 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby : Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate Respondent By :Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2,Kolkata, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since, These Two Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year & Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Same Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. At The Outset, Itself The Ld.Ar Pointed Out That The Impugned Order Is An Ex Parte Order & Therefore, The Assessee Could Not Plead His Case Before The Ld. Cit(A), He Prayed That The Matter May Be Remanded Back To The File Of The Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication. The Ld. Dr Did Not Have Any Objection If The S.H. Mumtazuddin Times (P) Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

S. H. Mumtazuddin Times Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 651/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.651 & 652/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) S.H. Mumtazuddin Times (P) Vs. Dcit, Cir-5(1), Kolkata. Ltd. Aaykarbhawan, P-7, 4, Radha Bazar Street, Kolkata Chowringhee Square, – 700 001. Kolkata – 700 069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aakcs 6915 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby : Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate Respondent By :Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2,Kolkata, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since, These Two Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Same Assessment Year & Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Same Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. At The Outset, Itself The Ld.Ar Pointed Out That The Impugned Order Is An Ex Parte Order & Therefore, The Assessee Could Not Plead His Case Before The Ld. Cit(A), He Prayed That The Matter May Be Remanded Back To The File Of The Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication. The Ld. Dr Did Not Have Any Objection If The S.H. Mumtazuddin Times (P) Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

Sri Ishan Agarwal, Siliguri vs. The DCIT, Cir-1, Siliguri

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in these three appeals (ITA

ITA 485/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.483, 484 & 485/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) Sri Ishan Agarwal Vs. Dcit, Cir-1, Siliguri Neha Footwear, Bidhan Market Aaykar Bhawan, Matigara, Road, Siliguri – 734001. Siliguri – 734008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajnpa 9488 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectivelyare Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-,Siliguri, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since, These Three Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Same Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

Sri Ishan Agarwal, Siliguri vs. The DCIT, Cir-1, Siliguri

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in these three appeals (ITA

ITA 484/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.483, 484 & 485/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) Sri Ishan Agarwal Vs. Dcit, Cir-1, Siliguri Neha Footwear, Bidhan Market Aaykar Bhawan, Matigara, Road, Siliguri – 734001. Siliguri – 734008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajnpa 9488 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectivelyare Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-,Siliguri, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since, These Three Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Same Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

Sri Ishan Agarwal, Siliguri vs. The DCIT, Cir-1, Siliguri

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in these three appeals (ITA

ITA 483/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.483, 484 & 485/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively) Sri Ishan Agarwal Vs. Dcit, Cir-1, Siliguri Neha Footwear, Bidhan Market Aaykar Bhawan, Matigara, Road, Siliguri – 734001. Siliguri – 734008. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajnpa 9488 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectivelyare Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-,Siliguri, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Since, These Three Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Same Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

M/S Budhiya Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-Xxx, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 269/KOL/2015[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.269 & 270/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05 & 2007-08 M/S Budhiya Marketing (P) Vs. A.C.I.T, Central Cir-Xxx, Ltd. Kolkata. 16B, Shakespeare Sarani, 2Ndfloor,Kolkata – 700 071. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb 3055 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Appellant By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Respondent By : Shri Kalyan Nath, Acit& A. K. Tiwari, Cit, Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2004-05 & 2007-08, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata In Appeal No. 475 &478/Cc- 3(2)/Cit(A)-21/14-15, Dated 19.01.2015, Which In Turn Arise Out Of Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3)/153A Of The I.T. Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.12.2011. 2. Since These Two Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Different Assessment Years, Identical Issues Are Involved, Therefore, These Have Been Clubbed & Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. The Assessee’S Appeal In Ita N0.270/Kol/2015, Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, ACIT& A. K. Tiwari, CIT, DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 143(3)Section 68