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)

Dinesh Soaps and Detergents, Kanpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

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

ITA 669/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Sept 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Dinesh Soaps & Detergents, Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 3/44 Vishnupuri, Kanpur Tax, Kanpur Pan: Aacfd1610M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Puneet Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 21.08.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 6.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “A. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Passed An Order Dated 21.08.2025 Which Is Erroneous, Bad In Law & Contrary To The Principles Of Natural Justice. B. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit[A] Has Erred By Not Admitting The Additional Evidence Filed By The Appellant Under Rule 46A Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962, Thereby Violating The Principles Of Natural Justice. C. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit[A] Has Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant Was Prevented By "Sufficient Cause", Being Multiple Tragic Deaths In The Family Leading To Severe Mental Distress & Business Closure, From Producing The Said Evidence Before The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144Section 43BSection 68

Sultanpur Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, Sultanpur vs. ACIT, DCIT Circle Faizabad

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

ITA 382/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Sept 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Sultanpur Zila Sahkari Bank Limited, Vs. Acit/Dcit, Faizabad Collectorate Campus, Allahabad Road, Sultanpur City S.O. Sultanpur, 228001 Pan: Aanas6008C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Mahendra Kumar, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 21.03.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee, Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 26.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Ground-The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sultanpur (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. A.O.) Erred On Facts & In Law Passing The Assessment Order U/S 263/143(3) Of The Act Without Appreciating The Fact That The Original Assessment Order Passed On 20.12.2017 Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 2. Ground-The Ld. A.O. Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs.7.46 Crores To The Returned Loss Of The Appellant By Way Of Invoking The Provisions Of Section 2(24)(X) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Case & Ignoring The Prevailing Law. 3. Ground-The Ld. A.O. Erred On Facts & In Law In Making Addition Of Rs.7.46 Crores To The Returned Loss Of The Appellant Without Appreciating The Fact That The Gross Amount Of Rs.7.46 Crores Was Pertaining To Different

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Kumar, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234ASection 263

Priya Nigam, Lucknow vs. NFAC Delhi/ITO-3(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 1010/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Sept 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2021-22 Priya Nigam, Vs. Ito-3(1), Lucknow 490/1 Ka, Nazier Ganj, Daliganj, Near Bsnl Tower, Lucknow Pan: Atipn0438L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Prashant Verma, Adv Revenue By: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 8.08.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Dated 27.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because, The Id. Cit (A) Has Failed To Know The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Has Arbitrarily Give The Decision Thereof Is Bad In Law & Liable To Quashed. 02.Because, The Id. Cit (A) Has Erred While Not Giving An Opportunity Of Being Heard & Dismissing The Appeal Merely On The Grounds Of Delay, Hence It Is Bad In Law & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice "Audi Alteram Partem" Of Constitution Of India. 03.Because, The Id. Ao Has Failed To Consider Reply & Submission Alongwith Supporting Documents Filed By The Appellant During Assessment Proceeding Is Not Justified By Law & Assessment Order Passed By The Id. Ao Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Prashant Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Bhavanaben Samatbhai Borkhatariya, Rajkot vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as dismissed

ITA 355/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Sept 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.355 /Rjt/2025 [ "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 ] Smt. Bhavanaben Samatbhai The Pr. Commissioner Of Borkhatariya, Vs. Income-Tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot, Shiv-02 Apartment, Flat No.401, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Tapar Society, Nr. Arjun Park, Nana Ring Road, Rajkot, Mava Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360004 Gujarat-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apkpb4525L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24/09/2026 24/09/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : :: Order :: Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 20.03.2025, Passed By The Cit (Appeals), Delhi, For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Before Us, The Ld. Counsel, On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That Assessee Did Not Wish To Press This Appeal, To Which, The Ld. Departmental Representative Did Not Raise Any Objection. Consequently, We Treat This Appeal As Withdrawn.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)