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)

Crr Leathers, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 616/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.616/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S. Crr Leathers, The Income Tax Officer, 9/5, Patnool Sardarjung Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Periamet, Chennai 600 003. Chennai 600 006. [Pan: Aaafc4173G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 27.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09, Wherein, In The Grounds Appeal, Besides Challenging The Confirmation Of Various Additions For Want Of Tds Under Section 195 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Assessee Has Mainly Challenged Confirmation Of Reopening Of Assessment, Which Is Barred By Limitation.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

Madras Sheet Glass Works (P) Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 442/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.442/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S. Madras Sheet Glass Works (P) The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., No. 67A, Village Road, Vs. Company Ward Iv(1), 121, Mahatma Thiruvottiyur, Chennai 600 019. Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, [Pan: Aaacm5340G] Chennai 600 019. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Chennai Dated 05.11.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds In Its Appeal: (I) The Cit (A) Erred In Not Accepting The Appellant'S Claim That It Was Carrying On Trading Business In Glass Sheet, During The Accounting Period Although On A Small Scale. (Ii) The Cit (A) Ought To Have Directed The Assessing Officer To Compute The Losses Incurred By The Assessee During The Year (Without Taking Into Account The 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, JCIT
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Atmaram Tantta HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 540/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 540/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Atmaram Tantiya (Huf) -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-43(1) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aacha 1629 R] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Alok Nath, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.08.2016 Of C.I.T(A)- 13, Kolkata Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Assessee Is A Huf. It Carries On Business As Manufacturer & Trader Of Hosiery Goods. For A.Y.2013-14 The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 29.09.2013 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.12,63,390/-. An Order Of Assessment Was Passed By The Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At A Sum Of Rs.41,93,590/-. Aggrieved By The Various Additons To The Total Income Made By The Ao In The Order Of Assessment, The Assessee Preferred Appeal Before Cit(A). The Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 22.08.2016 Confirmed The Order Of Ao & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee. 3. A Perusal Of Cit(A)’S Order Shows That He Has Decided The Appeal Ex-Parte. Order Of Cit(A) Mentions That Notice U/S 250 Of The Act Was Served & None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. In Page-18 Of The Cit(A)’S Order It Has Been Mentioned That Notices Dted 30.05.2016, 05-07.2016, 28.07.2016 & 10.08.2016 Were Issued. The Order Of Cit(A) Also Mentions That None Of The Notices Were Served On The Assessee & 2 Atmaram Tantiya (Huf). A.Yr.2013-14 No New Address Is Available. Thus It Is Clear That None Of The Notices Of Hearing Was Served On The Assessee. 4. Before Us The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Filed The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. For That The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Alleged Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alok Nath, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250