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)

Jagruti Bharat Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8226/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12 Jagruti Bharat Shah Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), 83 30 Rekha Bldg, Mumbai Vs. Rak Road, Wadala, Mumbai - 400031 [Pan: Aaqps1580D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Mr. Dhaval Shah & Ms. Tisha Bagh, Advocates Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-2, Lucknow, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025- 26/1081211974(1), Dated 26.09.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(2)(1), Mumbai, U/S. 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 26.12.2018 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Act Dated 26.09.2025 Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant & Confirming The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act Which Is Bad & Invalid In The Eyes Of Law. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Appreciating That The Assessment Order Passed Is In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Mr. Dhaval Shah and Ms. Tisha Bagh, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

ACIT Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sunjewels Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7390/MUM/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiaacit, Circle 3(2)(1) Sunjewels Private Limited Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 605/606, 6Th Floor, Multistoried Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Building, Seepz S.O., Andheri (E), Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 096 Pan/Gir No. Aabce 3519 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ravikant Pathak, Ca Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhary-Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against Order Dated 08.09.2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2016-17. 2. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Department Are As Under: 1. "Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) & Remitting The Matter Back To The Assessing Officer For Fresh Adjudication, Despite The Clear Restriction Contained In The Proviso To Section 251(1)(A) Ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, Which Permits Such Power Only In Cases Where The Assessment Is Made U/S.144 (Best Judgment Assessment)?" 2. "Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Having No Jurisdiction To Set Aside Or Remand An Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3), Acted Beyond His Statutory Authority In Law, Thereby Rendering The Impugned Appellate Order Dated 08.09.2025 Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed?" 3. "Whether The Ld.Cit(A), Instead Of Exercising The Powers Vested In Him Under Section 251(1)(A) To Confirm, Reduce, Enhance Or Annual The Assessment, Wrongly Assumed A Power To Restore The Matter To The Assessing Officer, Which Is Ultra Vires The Provisions Of The Income Tax Act, 1961."

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary-Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 69C