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 Aspective Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1007/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Sept 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm] I.T.A No. 1007/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Aspective Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Pan: Aaeca4599D) Central, Kolkata-2 (Appellant) (Respondent) Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2016 For The Appellant: Mrs. Parnashree Banerjee, Advocate For The Respondent: Shri R. S. Biswas, Cit Order Per Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm: This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of Order Of Pr. Cit, Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Vide No. Pcit Central,Kol-2/263/2015-16/7786-88 Dated 22.03.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Central Circle-Xxvii, Kolkata U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2012-13 Vide His Order Dated 27.03.2014. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Stated That He Wants To Withdraw This Appeal Filed By Assessee As He Has Been Received Instruction From The Assessee. Ld. Dr Has Not Objected To This Prayer Of The Assessee. Accordingly, We Permit The Withdrawal & Dismiss The Appeal Of Assessee As Withdrawn. 3. In The Result, The Appeal Of Assessee Is Dismissed As Withdrawn. 4. Order Is Pronounced In The Open Court. (P. M. Jagtap)Dated : 29Th September, 2016 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy Of The Order Forwarded To: Appellant – Aspective Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., 15B, Everest House, 46C, 1. Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700 071. Respondent –Pr.Cit, Kol-2, Kolkata. 2 The Cit(A), Kolkata 3. 4. Cit , Kolkata 5. Dr, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata /, By Order

For Appellant: Mrs. Parnashree Banerjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. S. Biswas, CIT
Section 143(3)

Birlasoft (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 479/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 479/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Birlasoft (India) Ltd., (Formerly Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Birlasoft Ltd.), 8Th Floor, Birla Tax, Circle-5(1), Tower, 25, Barhkhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb2769E Sa No. 44/Del/2016 (In Ita No. 479/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12) Birlasoft (India) Ltd., (Formerly Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Birlasoft Ltd.), 8Th Floor, Birla Tax, Circle-5(1), Tower, 25, Barhkhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacb2769E Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Abhishek Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. C. Swain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.12.2015 Of The Ao Passed U/S 144C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). The Assessee Has Also Moved An Application For The Stay Of The Ita No. 479 & Sa 44/Del/2016 2 Birlasoft (India) Ltd. Recovery Of Outstanding Demand Amounting To Rs.37,50,83,420/-.

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv., Sh. Neeraj Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N. C. Swain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C