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)

Rajesh A Yagnik, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir OSD -1, Mumbai

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

ITA 5302/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Rajesh A. Yagnik, 601, Siddharth Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Apartments, R. G. Thadani Marg, Income Tax, Central Circle- Osd-1, Room No.409, 4Th Worli, Mumbai 400 018 Pan:Aaopy 1369Q Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 .. Appellant Respondent Appellant By .. Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ar Respondent By .. Shri B. S. Bist, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing .. 22-09-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 22 -09- 2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Cit (Appeals)-52, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit (A)-52/Dc/Ac-Cc-44)/6/2014-15 Dated 31-08-2015. Assessment Was Framed By The Dcit, Central Circle, Osd-1, Mumbai For Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Vide His Order Dated 25-03-2014. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A) Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Taking Alv Of Self-Occupied House Property. For This, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground No.1:- “1) The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,75,000/- Made By The A O By Allowing Only Part Of The House As Self Occupied House Property Without Any Proper & Justifiable Basis”. 3. At The Outset, The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Filed A Copy Of The Tribunal’S Order In Assessee’S Own Case For Assessment Year 2009-10 In Ita No.1340/Mum/2015 Dated 12-01-2016, Wherein The Tribunal Has Restored The Matter Back To The File Of The A O In Earlier Year Vide Para 6 As Under:- “6. We Had Carefully Gone Through The Order Of Tribunal, Wherein On Similar Facts The Tribunal Observed As Under: - “2.1 I Have Considered The Rival Submissions & Perused The Material Available On Record. Without Going Into Much

Section 143(3)

Sara Trans Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3234/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3234/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sara Trans Export Corporation Ito, Ward 16(3)(4), बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, J-404, Congress House, V. P. Road, Vs. Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Abdfs 1919 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Bhavin Parekh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vishwas Jadhav सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 30.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 22.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 21.1.2015, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011- 12 Vide Order Dated 12.3.2014. 2. The Assessee’S Appeal Is Delayed By One Day. The Same Stands Explained By The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ar), The Assessee’S Counsel, During Hearing, Which Find As Reasonable. The Appeal Was, Accordingly, Admitted & Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 6