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)

Prakash Valjibhai Patel, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 863/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Sept 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 863/Rjt/2026 [ "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 ] Prakash Valjibhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Shree Ram Krupa, Panchsil Society, Ito Wd 3(1)(1), Vs. St. No. 3, Pl No. 23/B, Gondal Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Aqqpp6863Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri R. B. Shah, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2026 10/09/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : : Order : Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nac) Delhi/Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short ‘Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)’], Dated 25.05.2026, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Of The Act, Dated 16.03.2026. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao U/S 147 R.W.S. 143(3), Which Is Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio & Liable To Be Quashed. Prakash Valjibhai Patel

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69

Subhashchandra Patel, Daman vs. Assessment Unit Incmoe Tax Department, Vapi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyanisubhaschandra Patel, Deputy Commissioner Of Income 12 N 13 Signature Row House Tax, Opposite Coast Guard Air Station Assessment Unit Income Tax Kathiria Vs. Department Daman & Diu 7Th Floor, 8Th Floor & 9Th, Fortune Square, Ii, Road, Chala Vapi Pan: Agmpp3230B (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kumar Kale, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2026 O R D E R Per : Suchitra Kamble, J M: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) [In Short “Cit(A)”] Dated 07.01.2025 For The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Validity Of The Ao’S Action Of Reopening Notice U/S 148 Of The Act & The Consequent Assessment Order Passed Us 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act Which Is Invalid, Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void Ab Initio. 1.1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Erred In Upholding The Ao'S Action Of Reopening The Assessment U/S 148 Of The Act By Relying On The Unsubstantiated Information & That Too Without Verifying The Contents Of The Information. The Subhaschandra Patel

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Kale, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 68

Serajuddin and Co, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/CTK/2026[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Sept 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Gopalan Gurusamyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.536/Ctk/2026 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Serajuddin & Co. Vs Dcit/Acit, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar 19/A, 1St Floor, Abdul Hamid Street, Kol-69. Pan No. : Abifs3758G (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Ar रधजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Jeetendra Kumar, Cit D.R. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/09/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10137/2020-21 Dated 10.03.2026 For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Shri Sunil Mishra, Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Jeetendra Kumar, Cit D.R. Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Only Issue In This Appeal Is Against The Enhancement Made By The Ld. Cit(A) In Respect Of 3,50,00,000/- On Account Of A Telegram Chat With Serajuddin & Co. & The Screenshot Of The Chart Is Extracted By The Ld. Cit(A) At Page 36 Of His Order Which Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jeetendra Kumar, CIT D.R
Section 153A

Rajbala Chaudhry, Ambala, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-1, Ambala, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/CHANDI/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Rajesh Damodarlal Sharma, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.586/Chandi/2026 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Rajbala Chaudhry Ito Ward – 1 Pir Shah Mubarak Farm Aaykar Bhawan, Ambala बनाम/ Vs. Village Ugala, Ambala Haryana – 133001 Haryana – 133205 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Apapc-6836-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10-09-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 06.03.2026 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 22.04.2021. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Agricultural Income For Rs.21,81,875/-.

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Synergy Telecommunications, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1336/CHANDI/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Sept 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Rajesh Damodarlal Sharma, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1336/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Synergy Telecommunications Dcit-Central Circle – 2 बनाम/ Vs. A-1, Industrial Area, Phase – 1 Central Revenue Building Mohali, Punjab – 160055 Sector – 17, Chandigarh – 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abffs-4633-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Anshuman Sharma (Cit) - Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-08-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10-09-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 12.09.2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 21.12.2017. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Obsolete Stock As Written-Off By The Assessee During The Year.

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Anshuman Sharma (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)