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)

Yoginiben Bipin Barot, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessed is allowed

ITA 1090/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am& Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1090/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण "नधा"रण "नधा"रण वष" "नधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10) वष" Mrs. Yoginiben Bipin Barot, Vs. Dcit-9(2), Mumbai-400020 1St Floor, Yigikrupa, 14, Jawaharnagar, S.V.Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai- 62 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By क" क" ओर ओर : Shri R.N.Gami राज"व क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri H.M.Wanare सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 30 /10/2015 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Sanjay Garg: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)]-20, Mumbai, Dated 9-11-2012, For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Is Aggrieved In The Action Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ao) Of Rs.10,91,919/- On Account Of Unexplained Income. The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Not Been Able To Explain The Source Of Deposits Made In The Bank Account From Time To Time For The Period From 17.01.09 To 18.03.09 Totaling Rs.10,91,919/-. The Contention Of The Assessee, However, Has Been That Such Deposits Were From The Bank. The Ao, However, Did Not Agree With The Contention Of The Assessee & Made The Above Addition Which Has Been Further Confirmed

Section 143(3)

ITO 8(2)-4, Mumbai vs. Nisha Mall Management Co. P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5882/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri R.C.Sharma, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./Ita No.5882/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-2007) Ito-8(2)(4), Mumbai Vs. M/S Nishta Mall Management Co. Pvt. Ltd., Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar, Off. Jogeshwari-Vikhroli Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai-400060 स्थामी रेखा सिं./ जीआइआय सिं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm 0705 H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M. Rajan यनधावरयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi सुनर्ाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 5Th August, 2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 30-10-2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, Dated 13-4-2010, For The Assessment Year 2006-07, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Revenue :- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Business Centre Service Charges Of Rs.52,89,000/- Should Be Treated As “Business Income” Instead Of “Income From House Property” Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Case.”

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan
Section 143(3)