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)

Gordhanbhai L Moradia, Surat vs. ITO Ward 1(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 375/SRT/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.375/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 बनाम/ Gordhanbhai L Moradia The Ito V/S. 401, Krishna Vatika Society Ward-1(3)(2) City Light Road Surat – 395 001 Surat – 395 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ablpm 2077 K (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Merely For A Delay Of 2 Days, That Too Without Affording A Single Opportunity Of Requesting For Condonation Of Delay. Gordhanbhai I. Moradia Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Samir Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54B

Pragnaben Jayeshbhai Patel, Surat Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Surat

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

ITA 885/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.885/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 बनाम/ Pragnaben Jayeshbhai Patel The Ito V/S. 71, Satyanarayan Society Ward-2(3)(3) Dindoli Surat Surat – 394 210 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bcvpp 2891 Q (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 20/06/2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Make An Addition Of Rs. 15,00,000/- Without Having Any Foundational Facts Which Leads To Reason To Believe That Income Has Escaped Assessment. It Is The Settled Position Of Law That Only Cash Deposit Is Not The Ground Of Initiating Assessment As The Same Is Nothing But The Inquiry By The Learned Assessing Officer & Therefore, Notice Issued Under Section 148 Deserves To Be Quashed & Set Aside. Pragnaben Jayeshbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala L/H Kalavatiben Jayantilal Lakadawala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Surat

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

ITA 688/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.688/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 बनाम/ Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala The Ito V/S. Legal Heir - Ward-3(1)(2) Kalavatiben Jayantilal Surat – 395 007 Lakadawala 7/4200, Galemandi Suthar Faliya Surat – 395 003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acvpl 6127 E (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 28/06/2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As The Law On The Subject, The Learned Commissioner Of The Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Re-Opening The Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act & Issuing Notice U/S.148 Of The Act, 1961. Rakesh Jayantilal Lakdawala L/H.Kalavatiben Jayantilal Lakadawala Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12 2

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148

Dilipkumar Dahyabhai Patel, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari

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

ITA 62/SRT/2024[ 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.62/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dilipkumar Dahyabhai Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Moti Kanbiwad Tankal Ward-2 V/S. Tal. Chikhli Navsari Navsari – 396 560 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Asipp 6274 H (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hardik Vora, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 23/11/2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.17,00,000/- On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposit. Dilipkumar Dahyabhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12 2 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Not Accepting Additional Evidences As Per Rule 46A Of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit (Appeals) Has Erred In Not Considering That Cash Deposits In Bank Account Are On Account Of Agricultural Income.

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 147