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)

Hemani Deepak Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5790/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjeet Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5790/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Hemani Deepak Patel Ito-19(3)(2), बनाम/ 159-B, Lalita Sadan, Room No. 306, Piramal Chambers, S. V. Road, Bandra (W), Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012 Vs. Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpp 3864 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nihar H. Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Satyanarayana Raju सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 29.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 15.7.2016 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 27.6.2014, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2005-06 Vide Order Dated 01.3.2013. 2. The Assessee Not Pressing Her Ground # 1 (Qua Reopening Of Assessment U/S. 148 Of The Act), The Only Issue Arising In This Appeal Is The Addition U/S. 68/69 In The Sum Of Rs.15.40 Lacs On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposits Made In Her Bank

For Appellant: Shri Nihar H. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Satyanarayana Raju
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

R.Govindarajulu, Udamalpet vs. ITO, Pollachi

Accordingly, we sustain the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 371/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyi T.A. Nos. 1333/Mds/2014 & 371/Mds/2015 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Shri R. Govindarajulu, The Income Tax Officer, No. 15, Sikkandar Batsha Street, Vs. Ward I(1), Gandhinagar (Po), Udumalpet. Pollachi. [Pan:Ahcpg9679A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mathivanan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Same Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Coimbatore Dated 26.02.2014 & 29.09.2014 For The Relevant Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively. For The Assessment Year 2009-10, The First Common Ground Raised In The Appeal Is With Regard To Confirmation Of Addition Of ₹. 20,00,000/- Made Under Section 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Unexplained Investment In Repayment Of Housing Loan, (2) Confirmation Of Estimation Of Income From Fast Moving Goods At 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mathivanan, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69