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)

Jupiter Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in part

ITA 5829/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainआमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 5829/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jupiter Construction Dy. Cit-19(3), बिाम/ Room No. 305, 3Rd Floor, Ground Floor, Narang Manor, 15Th Road, Plot No. 96-B, Bandra (W), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaugh, Vs. Mumbai-400 050 Mumbai-400 012 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./ Pan/Gir No. Aaafj 1783 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi Kiran सुनवाई की तायीख / : 14.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : 28.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R. C. Sharma, A. M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order By The Ld. Cit(A)-30, Mumbai Dated 17.6.2014, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11. 2. The First Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To The Disallowance Of Business Expenses Of Rs.5,19,743/-.

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Shri K. Ravi Kiran
Section 143(3)Section 28

Diamonds 'R' Us, Mumbai vs. CIT Cen -III, Mumbai

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

ITA 2945/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Before Shri Before Before Shri Shri Sanjay Garg, Shri Sanjay Garg, Sanjay Gargsanjay Garg & And & Shri Shri Ashwani Taneja Shri Shri Ashwani Taneja Ashwani Taneja, , , Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2945/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / / / / Assessment Year : 2008-09) .M/S. Diamonds 'R' Us, बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1110, Prasad Chambers, Vs. Central Circle-Iii, Opera House, Mumbai. Mumbai 400004 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafd4507H अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By Shri Anuj Kisnadwala ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By Shri A K Srivastava सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2016 आदेश / O R D E R आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश / O R D E R / O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Revision Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dated 26.3.2013 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Has Stated That Pursuant To The Passing Of The Order U/S 263 Of The Act, The Ao Has Passed Order U/S 143(3)

Section 143(3)Section 263