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)

Badri Prasad Kedar Nath, Vivek Khand Lucknow vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Lucknow New, Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan

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

ITA 389/LKW/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Aug 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Badri Prasad Kedar Nath, Vs. Dy/Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 1/11 Vivek Khand, Lucknow Tax-1, Lucknow New 226010, Lucknow Pan: Aadfb9505G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Shweta, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sudhakar Shukla, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 12.09.2025, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee For Statistical Purposes, That Was Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Which Is Illegal, Improper & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard & Without Considering The Written Submission Made Before Him. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Failing To Adjudicate The Addition Of 77,40,914 Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Act In The Reassessment Order Dated 04.03.2025 Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B, Despite The Same Being Specifically Challenged By The Appellant In The Grounds Of Appeal Filed Before Him.

For Appellant: Ms. Shweta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sudhakar Shukla, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271ASection 68Section 69A

Punit Goel, Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-3, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is held to be partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 500/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Aug 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Punit Goel, Vs. Acit-2, C-35, E-Park, Mahanagar Lucknow-New Extension, Lucknow Pan: Aeppg2547F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, C.A. Revenue By: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 2.07.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee That Were Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) For The Assessment Year 2016-17 On 25.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1 That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case By Not Allowing The Appeal. 2. That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Law By Not Providing The Reasonable 2 Opportunity Of Being Heard Through Video Conferencing Even After Requesting For The Same. 3. That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case In Making Addition Of Rs. 13,35,356/-Being Difference Of Income As Per 26As & Books. 4. That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Making Addition Of Rs 13,35,356/- On Account Of Alleged Difference With 26As Without Bringing On Record Any Evidence That The Difference Was Income Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 68