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)

The Ezhumzttoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Pathanmthitta vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 778/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2020-21 Ezhumattoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 7-392, Ezhumattoor P.O., Malappally Pathanamthitta 689586 [Pan: Aafat6575K] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Thiruvalla .......... Respondent Assessee By: Smt. Pooja V.M., Advocate Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.11.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 30.12.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 25,120/- After Claiming Deduction U/S. 80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Against The Said Return Of 2 Ezhumattoor Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Assessment Unit Of Income Tax Department (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 27.09.2022 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act At Total Income Of Rs. 57,08,630/-. While Doing So, The Ao Denied Deduction U/S. 80P In Respect Of Interest Income Of Rs. 56,83,510/- Placing Reliance On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Apex Court In The Case Totgar’S Co-Operative Sale Society Ltd. V. Ito [2010] 322 Itr 283 (Sc).

For Appellant: Smt. Pooja V.M., AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Ishwar Prasad Jaiswal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1790/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1790/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Ishwar Prasad Jaiswal, Vs Ito Ward-37(1), Kolkata 123/2, A.P.C.Road, Manicktala Kolkata-700006 Pan No. :Acupj 2854 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rip Das, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 09.06.2025 Passed For Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The Only Ground Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To Addition Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) On Account Of Unexplained Source Of Transaction U/S.69C Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.10.2018 For The A. Y. 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,49,390/-. The Ao Had Received Information That The Assessee Was One Of The Beneficiary Of Bogus Transactions Made In The Form Of Fictitious Purchases & Bogus Billing From The Parties Like Hiraani Suppliers Pvt. Ltd; Niraj Nathani To The Tune Of Rs.14,50,800/- During The F.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Was The Recipient Of Irregular Input Tax Credit Amounting To Rs.14,50,800/-During The Fy 2017-18 Relevant To The A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri Rip Das, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Sri Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1361/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1361/Kol/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-2022) Sri Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata C/O M/S Salarpuria Jajodia & Co 7, Cr.Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata West Bengal-700072 Pan No. :Adrpg 5357 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sujay Sen, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-27, Dated 05.03.2025 Passed For Assessment Year 2021-2022. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Delayed By 24 Days. Though The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Condonation Application Nor Any Affidavit, However, Looking To The Facts Of The Case & The Issue Involved Therein, I Am Of The View That The Delay In Filing The Appeal Deserves To Be Condoned, Which Has Also Not Been Objected By The Ld. Sr. Dr. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. The Sole Issue Involved In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is With Regard To Addition Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Alleged Undisclosed Jewellery. 4. Facts In Brief Are That Are That The Assessee Had Filed Original Return Of Income U/S 139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Relevant

For Appellant: Shri Sujay Sen, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69B