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)

Ginni Refractories Pvt. Ltd, Rajgangpur vs. DCIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 442/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.442/Ctk/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Ginni Refractories Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Rourkela Main Road, Rajgangpur- 770017 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajcs 9701 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Pawan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Sumbalpur, Dated 05.09.2017 Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0040/14-15 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. Basis Principal Of The Income Tax Act Is That If Someone Is Showing Expenses Than Other Person Should Reflect The Same As Receipts In Its Books Of Account. "Ginni Refractories Pvt Ltd Shows Sorting & Chipping Expenses Of Rs 3,942,306/-In Its Books Of Account To M/S Anand Traders & M/S Anand Traders Has Also Filed Its Income Tax Return Reflecting The Same Receipts In Its Books Of Accounts. Hence Basis Principal Of The Income Tax Act Is Complied." 2. There Are Two Kinds Of Provisions Under The Act, - One In Respect Of What Is Allowable & Other In Respect Of What Is Not Allowable, I.E., They Override The Provisions. As Discussed Also From Time-To-Time, Overriding Provisions Should First Be Applied & Then Only One Can Decide The Allow Ability Of Expenditure. If Any Expenditure Is Not Allowable Due To Any Provisions, Then That Expenditure Should Not Be Allowed. These Are Specific & General Provisions Which Do Not Allow

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Mira Devi Dasrapuria, Khurda vs. ITO, Khurda Ward, Khurda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 363/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.363/Ctk/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Smt. Mira Devi Dasrapuria, Vs. Ito, Khurda Main Road, Khurda-752055 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abkpm 8607 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Kumar Agarwalla,Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Pradhan,Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 15.7.2016, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0317/15-16, U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2011- 2012. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Action Of Cit(A) In Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act, Though The Assessee Has Furnished Information & Accepted The Income In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is In The Business Of Retail Trading In Cement & Iron Materials & Wholesale Distributor Of Airtel Rcv & Filed The Return Of Income Electronically For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 On 29.09.2011 With Total Income Of Rs.1,81,000/- & The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar Agarwalla,ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan,CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274(1)

Putul Jash, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1164/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1164/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 Putul Jash Vs. Asssitant C.I.T, Cir – 1, Burdwan Vill. Chakundi, P.O. Nabastha, Aayakarbhawan, Kachari P.S. Memari, Burdwan – 713 407. Road, Court Compound, Burdwan – 713 101. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Afdpj3622D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By :Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By :Shri S. M. Das, Acit (Dr) सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Asansol In Appeal No.202/Cit(A)/Asl/Cir-1/Bwn/13-14 Dated 17.10.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Herein After Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 30.04.2013. 2. The Said Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No.1164/K/15 For A.Y.2006-07, Is Barred By Limitation By 267 Days. The Assessee Has Moved A Petition Requesting The Bench To Condone The Delay. We Heard The Party On This Preliminary Issue. The Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted Before Us That Assessee Provided His

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. M. Das, ACIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 27lSection 68

DCIT, Chennai vs. Indo Tech Transformer Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 781/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 781/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2005-06 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Indo Tech Transformer Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Vs. No. Dp-36, Sidco Industrial Estate, Room No.512, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Thirumazhisai, Chennai 602 107. Block, 121, M.G. Road, [Pan:Aaaci5775P] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Asish Tripathi, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 19.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made On Account Of Contractual Deduction To Eb & Bad Debts Written Off By Admitting Fresh Evidence In Violation Of Rule 46A Of The Income Tax Rules.

For Appellant: Shri Asish Tripathi, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai vs. Sunraj Industries, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2589/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2589/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Dcit Cir 29(3), Vs. M/S Sunraj Industries, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, 218, Veena Indl Estate, C-10, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, L.B.S. Marg, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bhandup (E), Mumbai- 400083 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofs8367E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1871/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Sunraj Industries, Vs. The Acit Cir 23 (1), 218, Veena Indl Estate, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, C-10, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vikhroli (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400083 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofs8367E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Lala (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against Order Dated 16/02/2015 Passed By The Ld. Cit (A)-40, Mumbai Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-11, Whereby The Ld. Cit (A) Has Partly

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Lala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145Section 40

Sunraj Industries, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1871/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2589/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Dcit Cir 29(3), Vs. M/S Sunraj Industries, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, 218, Veena Indl Estate, C-10, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, L.B.S. Marg, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bhandup (E), Mumbai- 400083 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofs8367E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1871/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Sunraj Industries, Vs. The Acit Cir 23 (1), 218, Veena Indl Estate, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, C-10, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vikhroli (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400083 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofs8367E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Lala (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against Order Dated 16/02/2015 Passed By The Ld. Cit (A)-40, Mumbai Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-11, Whereby The Ld. Cit (A) Has Partly

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Lala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145Section 40

Girdharilal Bhartia, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 44(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 565/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.565/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Girdharilal Bhartia Vs. I.T.O. Ward 44(1), Kolkata 126, N M Joshi Marg, Mathurdas 3, Govt. Place (West), Mill Compound, C D House, Lower Kolkata – 700 001. Parel (West), Mumbai – 400 013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adzpb 9756 G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Acit, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata, In Appeal No.487/Cit(A)-13/2014-15/Kol, Dated 08.03.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 29.03.2014. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That Ld. Cit(A) Passed An Ex Parte Order Stating That The Notices, Which Were Sent To The Assessee Had Been Returned Back By The Postal

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, ACIT, CIT DR
Section 147Section 250

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( Ground No

ITA 2205/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2205/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Cirle-12(2), Vs. M/S Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata 10/1B, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata – 700 027. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 7951 G (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Revenue/Department By :Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.237/Xii/Cir-12/14-15 Dated 17.09.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 20.03.2014. 2. Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. “That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,42,76,824/- Made By The A.O. On Depreciation On Hoarding Structures.” 2. “That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,66,53,847/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Deduction U/S. 80-Ia.”

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80