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)

Hcc Real Estate Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3), Mumbai

ITA 2550/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.2550-51/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 & 2006-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Hcc Real Estate Ltd. Acit-10(3) 11Th, Flooe,247 Park Vs. Mumbai. Hincon House, Lbs Marg, Vikroli (W) Mumbai-400 083. Pan:Aabch 6060 P (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punamiya-Ar िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri B.D. Naik-Dr सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2016 सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर 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) खंडपीठ केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Bench- खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 30.01.2014 Of Cit(A)-22,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Ay.S.Raising Various Ground Of Appeal.During The Course Of Hearing Before Us,The Authorised Representative(Ar)Stated That Only Ground No.1 & 7 For The Ay. 2006 -07 Were To Be Decided.Hence,Rest Of The Grounds Stand Dismissed As Not Pressed.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punamiya-ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Naik-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

ITO 8(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Nistha Mall Management Co. P . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2743/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2743/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-8(2)(3), Nishta Mall Management Co. Pvt. Room No. 213, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar, Mumbai-400 020 Off. Jogeshwari, Vikhroli Link Vs. Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400 060 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm 0705 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Randhir Gupta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nishit Gandhi सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 24.2.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 29.2.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 14.1.2013, Allowing 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.) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 30.11.2011. 2. The Principal Issue Arising In This Appeal, Agitated Per Its’ First Four Grounds, Is In Respect Of The Head Of Income Under Which The Rental Income For Allowing The User

For Appellant: Shri Randhir GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Nishit Gandhi
Section 143(3)Section 56

Rheema Hassan Ali Khan, Pune vs. DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 3571/MUM/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan, Vp & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3571/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01) Rheema Hassan Ali Khan Dy. Cit, Central Circle-2, बनाम/ Valentine Society, 1 Tulip, North Mumbai Main Road, Koregaon Park, Vs. Pune - 411 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aompk 8156 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Girish Dave & Ms. Kadambari Dave सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 29.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: Vide This Appeal The Assessee Agitates The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Central-I, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 26.11.2008, 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.) 2000-01 Dated 19/3/2008. 2. None Appeared For & On Behalf Of Assessee When Her Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing, Nor Is There Any Adjournment Motion. This, Despite Service Of Notice Of

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Girish Dave &
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)