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)

ACIT CC 39, Mumbai vs. Sadbhav Land P.Ltd

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 599/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.599/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Sadbhav Land Pvt.Ltd, Tax, Cc-39, Room No.32(1), 102, Sagar Darshan Vs. Ground Floor, Cts No.10223/4, Aayakar Bhavan, Ramnath Road, M K Road, Alibaug-402201. Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aalcs1288G अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri Love Kumar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Assessee By None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24 .6.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Order Dated 29.10.2013 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-41, Mumbai, For Assessment Year 2008-09 By Which The Revenue Is Challenging The Deletion Of Penalty Levied By The Ao. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Service Of Notice To The Assessee. However, A Letter Dated 21.6.2016 Has Been Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee Seeking Adjournment On The Ground That The Person Who Is Handling The Case Is Out Of Station. In The Earlier Occasion Vide Letter Dated 30.6.2015

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

Cms Info Systems P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(3), Mumbai

ITA 5038/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5038/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Cms Info Systems Private Limited Adcit-5(3) Cms House, Plot No.91, Street No.7 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marol Midc Andheri(E) Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 093. Pan:Aamcs 2311 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratham-Dr Assessee By: Shri Prakash Jotwani-Ar’S सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dtd.23/05/2013 Of The Cit (A)-9,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Firm,Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Computer Systems, Components & Peripherals & Other Allied Services,Filed Its Return Of Income On 13.10. 2010,Declaring Total Income At Rs.Nil.It Filed A Revised Return On 29.09.2011 Showing Income Of Rs.38,79,76,980/-. A Revised Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.09.2011,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.38,26, 36,760/-.The Assessing Officer (Ao)Completed The Assessment, U/S. 143(3) Of The Act,On 27.02.2013,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.38.55 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani-AR’sFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratham-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

Good Morning, Mumbai vs. CIT 15, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2533/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2533/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Good Morning Cit-15, बनाम/ Shivtirth No. 2, E Wing, 124, Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, 4/6 Bhulabhai Desai Road, Haji Ali, Vs. Mumbai-400 026 Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadfp 2489 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vidisha Kalra सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Revision Of Its Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 16.12.2011 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-15, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Vide His Order U/S. 263 Of The Act Dated 24.3.2014 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. None Appeared For & On Behalf Of The Assessee When Its’ Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing. In Fact, We Observe No Appearance By The Assessee-Appellant On Any Date Of Hearing Despite Service Of Notices Of Hearing Per Registered Post. There Is Also No Adjournment Application On Record & Neither Has The Assessee, On The Basis Of The Material On Record, Appointed/Authorized Any Counsel To Represent Its’ Case Before The 2 Good Morning Vs. Cit Tribunal. The Appeal Contests The Order Of Revision, Which Is To Be Taken Up On A Priority Basis In-As-Much As It Has Implication On Quantum Assessment. It Was, Accordingly, Considered Proper To Proceed To Hear This Appeal Ex Parte The Assessee & Decide The Same On Merits After Hearing The Party Before Us & Considering The Material On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vidisha Kalra
Section 143(3)Section 263