← All Phrases

“draft assessment order”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144CSection 144C4,773 judgments

The decision most relied on for draft assessment order is ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co. (454 ITR 312), cited in 580 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on draft assessment order

ACIT v. Serajuddin & Co.
454 ITR 312 · 2023 · High Court
580
citing judgments

Approval under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act is mandatory for assessment orders in search cases. While elaborate reasons for approval are not required, the approving authority must provide some indication that it has examined the draft orders and found them to meet the requirements of law.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Subodh Agarwal
149 Taxmann.com 373 · 2023 · High Court
194
citing judgments

Approval of draft assessment orders under Section 153D must be granted with due application of mind, not mechanically. Approving multiple cases, such as 38 in a single day, without proper scrutiny amounts to mechanical approval, rendering the assessment invalid.

Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP
369 ITR 113 · 2014 · High Court
140
citing judgments

Passing a final assessment order under Section 143(3) directly, without first issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) for an eligible assessee, constitutes a fundamental jurisdictional defect. This defect cannot be cured by a subsequent corrigendum, especially if issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie v. Union of India
388 ITR 383 · 2016 · High Court
71
citing judgments

Failure to issue a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) makes the final assessment order illegal and beyond jurisdiction. Non-compliance with Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) directions renders the final assessment order bad in law.

JCB India Ltd. v. DCIT
398 ITR 189 · 2017 · High Court
49
citing judgments

The requirement to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C of the Act is mandatory. A final assessment order issued without such a draft order is a nullity, constituting an incurable jurisdictional error that cannot be saved by Section 292B, even in set-aside proceedings following an ITAT remand.

Aggarwal v. NFAC
127 Taxmann.com 637 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Denying a personal hearing when specifically requested, especially after a search and during a pandemic, violates the principles of natural justice. The assessment and appellate proceedings themselves were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hire Purchase (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC
128 Taxmann.com 190 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Failure to grant a personal hearing to an assessee when income is likely to be varied based on submitted evidence violates the principles of natural justice and renders the assessment order invalid.

Chandrakant Dharia v. ITO
469 ITR 262 · Reported
34
citing judgments

An adverse assessment order cannot be passed without granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the taxpayer. Where income is to be varied based on evidence, a personal hearing is mandatory.

Judgments citing draft assessment order

Sudhir Bhalla, Meerut vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Meerut

ITA 3174/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 3169/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 3170/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 3171/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 3172/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 3173/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 3174/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 3175/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 3176/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Vasudev Garg, Vs Dcit, Fca 50, Mukesh Colony, Ballabgarh, Central Circle-1, Faridabad, Haryana-121004 Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aflpg8975Q Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: The Assessee’S Eight Appeals

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)

Assessing Officer and considered at the time of approval; and c) The relevant seized documents were duly verified before the passing of the draft assessment order.  These categorical findings recorded in the approval order itself dispel the allegation of non-application of mind. They demonstrate that the Addl ... mandates that the appraisal report is shared with both the Assessing Officer and supervisory authorities.  Therefore, much prior to the forwarding of the draft assessment order, the Addl. CIT was well- informed about the facts and issues. The fact that approval was granted on the same day as receipt

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ahmednagar vs. Babasaheb Kawad Nighoj Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2242/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2242/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Income Tax Officer, V Babasaheb Kawad Nighoj Ward-2, Ahmednagar. S Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, A/P-Nighoj, Tal-Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar – 414306. Pan: Aaaan1638E Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 30/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For A.Y.2020-21 Dated 11.09.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : "1) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Is Justified In Allowing The Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, In Respect Of The Interest Income From Investment Kept With Co-Operative Banks?

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 82P(2)(d)

from the deposits/investment held with Co-operative Banks which is not allowable deduction u/s 80P. The AO issued show cause notice and Draft Assessment Order (DAO) to the appellant proposing the disallowance of interest income received from Co-operative Banks. In response, the appellant filed its submission, however