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)

ITO, WD-36(1), Kolkata vs. Sri Ravi Sharma, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 331/KOL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.331/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2009-2010) Ito, Ward-36(1) Vs. Sri Ravi Sharma, Aayakar Bhawan(Poorva), 8R, Jagodyan Lane, 8Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700054 Kolkata-700107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.:Azkps3079G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit, Sr-Dr Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/01/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Xx, Kolkata In Appeal No.358/Cit(A)-Xx/Wd-36(1)/2011-12/Kol, Dated 07.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 29.12.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2009-2010 On 10-09-2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,28,750/- & The Same Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act. Later On, Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making The Disallowance Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 At Rs.48 Lakhs. 4. Aggrieved From The Order Of Ao, The Assessee Filed An Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, SR-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

ACIT, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), Chennai vs. Arun Excello Constructions LLP, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2197/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2197/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Arun Excello Construction Llp, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 11, Vs. 18, Bhattad Towers, West Cott Road, 2Nd Floor, Bsnl Building, Tower Ii, 16, Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. Greams Road, Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aaufa2577J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2018 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 16.08.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Quantify The Exempt Income & Restrict The Disallowance To The Exempt Income As The Assessee Has Not Claimed Any Exempt Income In The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 4

DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2196/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2196/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Vellore Institute Of Technology, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Vs. 54, Thennamaram Street, Chennai 600 034. Vellore 632 014. [Pan:Aaatn0569M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Mahesh, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.01.2018 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) 18, Chennai Dated 28.06.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Giving Effect To Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Infructuous.

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 10Section 10(22)Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263