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)

Harindar Prasad, Ballia vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 169/VNS/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi31 Aug 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Harinder Prasad, Vs. Nfac, Delhi Kharicha Garwar Near Primary School, Ballia 277121, U.P. Pan: Btypp1376E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Arvind Shukla, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sudipta Paul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 26.03.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B For The A.Y. 2017-18 Dated 26.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. Because The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Simply On The Point Of Imitation Without Addressing The Reasons For Condonation Of Delay Properly. 2. Because The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The High-Pitched Assessment Order Has Been Passed Simply On Conjectures & Surmises Without Appreciating The Submissions On Record & Also Without Giving Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. Because The Learned Ao As Well As The Learned Cit(A) Have Failed To Appreciate That The Computer Illiterate Rural Trader With Small Turnover Never Got Information About Notices Sent On Portal & Was Prevented Reasonable Responding.

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Shukla, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sudipta Paul, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68Section 69ASection 80C

Aditya Ornaments, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 599/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Aug 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 599/Rjt/2026 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Aditya Ornaments The Income-Tax Officer, Ground Floor, Shri Ghanshyam Ward-2(1)(1), Rajkot Vs. Niwas, 8/19, Kevdawadi Corner, Income-Tax Office, Race Kevdawadi Main Road, Course Ring Road Rajkot Gujarat 360001 Rajkot Gujarat 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No.: Aaxfa4839Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2026 Order Per, Bench: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, 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 27.02.2026, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 24.12.2019. Aditya Ornaments

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A