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)

Blue Chip Financial Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 12(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5616/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalblue Chip Financial Services Vs Income Tax, Circle 12(1)(3) Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 24, Dheeraj Heritage, 3Rd Floor, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 S.V. Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai 400054 Pan: (Aaacb2087R) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhatt, Ca Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078465141(1) Dated 14.07.2025 Passed Against Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Ay 2012-13. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “A) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Of The Alleged Unaccounted Money In The Form Of Accommodation Entry From Shell Company M/S Anubhav Commosale Pvt Ltd To The Extent Of Rs 20,00,055/- Treating It As Unexplained Income U/S 68 Of It Act.

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Bharat Paper Mart, Mumbai vs. Assistatant Commissioner of Incme Tax Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5594/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Bharat Paper Mart Assistant Commissioner Of 219, Podar Chambers, S.A. Income Tax Circle-17(1), Mumbai Brelvi Road, Fort, Mumbai Vs. Maharashtra 400001 (Pan: Aajfb0186H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram. Sr. Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078818110(1), Dated 23.07.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- 17(1)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 04.03.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2 Bharat Paper Mart Ay 2013-14 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Confirming Order Of Assessing Officer Disallowing Partner'S Remuneration Of Rs.31,30,490/- Paid To Working Partner Out Of Remuneration Of Rs.99,76,470/- Paid To Him Without Appreciating That Said Remuneration Was Paid In Accordance With The Provisions Of Section 40(B)(V) Of Income Tax Act 1961 & Hence The Disallowance Of Remuneration Of Rs. 31,30,490/- May Be Deleted. 2. The Learned Nfac Erred In Confirming Order Of Assessing Officer Taxing Commission Income Of Rs. 3,77,617/ On The Basis Of Form No. 26As Without Appreciating That Said Commission Income Was Not Taxable In A.Y. 2013-14 & Hence The Addition Of Rs. 3,77,617/- May Be Deleted. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Delete Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram. Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40