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)

Smita Jatia, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -7(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 4441/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Amit Jatia The Asst. Cit, Central Circle 7(1) 1001, Tower-3, 10Th Floor, Mumbai One International Center, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi, Delisle Road S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaepj 8462 D (Appellant) : (Respondent) & Smt. Smita Jatia The Asst. Cit, Central Circle 7(1) 1001, Tower-3, 10Th Floor, Mumbai One International Center, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi, Delisle Road S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Addpj 8102 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Shash Bekal Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Are Appeals Relating To Two Different Assessee’S, Arising Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai. While Ita No. 4440/Mum/2025 Relates To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15, Ita No.4441/Mum/2025 Relates To A.Y. 2017-18. (Ays. 2014-15 & 2017-18) Shri Amit Jatia & Smt. Smita Jatia 2. Since, Appellants Are Closely Related, Being Husband & Wife & Issues Arising For Consideration Are More Or Less Identical, They Have Been Clubbed Together & Disposed Of In A Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Amit Jatia, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 4440/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Amit Jatia The Asst. Cit, Central Circle 7(1) 1001, Tower-3, 10Th Floor, Mumbai One International Center, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi, Delisle Road S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaepj 8462 D (Appellant) : (Respondent) & Smt. Smita Jatia The Asst. Cit, Central Circle 7(1) 1001, Tower-3, 10Th Floor, Mumbai One International Center, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Prabhadevi, Delisle Road S.O., Mumbai-400 013 Pan/Gir No. Addpj 8102 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Shash Bekal Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Are Appeals Relating To Two Different Assessee’S, Arising Out Of Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai. While Ita No. 4440/Mum/2025 Relates To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014-15, Ita No.4441/Mum/2025 Relates To A.Y. 2017-18. (Ays. 2014-15 & 2017-18) Shri Amit Jatia & Smt. Smita Jatia 2. Since, Appellants Are Closely Related, Being Husband & Wife & Issues Arising For Consideration Are More Or Less Identical, They Have Been Clubbed Together & Disposed Of In A Common Order, For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Binod Automobiles, Angul vs. Income Tax Officer, Angul Ward, Angul

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 602/CTK/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.602/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Binod Automobiles, Vs Ito, Angul Ward, Angul At- Nh 55 Kandsar, Nalco Nagar Dist – Angul-759145 Pan No. :Aalfb 0713 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 18.09.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Assessee Is Dealer In Automobile. There Was A Survey On The Premises Of The Assessee On 05/02/2015. On The Basis Of The Survey The Ddit Had Alleged Suppression In The Investment In The Showroom To An Extent Of Rs.3,10,03,517/-. It Was Submission That The Reasons For Reopening Is At Page 2 Of The Paper Book Which Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 147