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)

Md Faizul Islam, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-26(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 928/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.928/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2010-2011) Md. Faizul Islam, Vs. Ito Ward-26(2), 86, Canning Street, Kolkata-700071 Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aarpi 9461 L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.L.Kochar & Anil Kochar, Advocates राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Kolkata, In Appeal No.92/Cit(A)-19/Kol/2014-15, Dated 11.03.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 28.03.2013. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Has Electronically Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2010-11 On 27.06.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,27,090/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1). Later On, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making The Addition Of Rs.15 Lakhs Treating The Same As Unexplained Cash Credit Md. Faizul Islam

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Kochar & Anil Kochar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, ADDL.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

Sigma Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-10(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee on all grounds is allowed

ITA 923/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.923/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2005-2006) Sigma Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito Ward-10(3), Kalyan Bhavan, Kolkata-700069 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahcs 2874 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sallong Yadeen, Adll.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 30/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2005-2006, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Kolkata In Appeal No.432/Cit(A)-11/Wd.-12(3)/14-15/Kol, Dated 24.02.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 20.12.2007. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Company Had Filed Income Tax Return For The Assessment Year 2005-06 On 6-12-2005 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,37,060/-. The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Computed The Assessment After Making Disallowance (Based On Estimate @10% Of The Expenses) I.E. The Ao Has Disallowed Business Promotion Expenses, Office Rent, Travelling Expenses, Annual Maintenance Charges

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yadeen, ADLL.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234A