← 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

Aravali Infrabuild Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-13, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1328/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 37

having jurisdiction over the case. Thereafter, the Addl. CIT first examines the seized material, applies his mind and then after going through the draft assessment order, he issues approval u/s 153D of the Act to pass the assessment order through his letter sent to AO. In this process, the assessee ... Income Tax Act, 1961 during the block assessment of assessee company. Hence, the approval given by the Range Head with respect to the draft assessment order proposed by the AO cannot be termed as mechanical. Further, in view of the above as per the CBDT guidelines stated above

Aravali Infrabuild Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-13, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1327/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 37

having jurisdiction over the case. Thereafter, the Addl. CIT first examines the seized material, applies his mind and then after going through the draft assessment order, he issues approval u/s 153D of the Act to pass the assessment order through his letter sent to AO. In this process, the assessee ... Income Tax Act, 1961 during the block assessment of assessee company. Hence, the approval given by the Range Head with respect to the draft assessment order proposed by the AO cannot be termed as mechanical. Further, in view of the above as per the CBDT guidelines stated above

Aravali Infrabuild Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-13, Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 1326/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicialmember

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 37

having jurisdiction over the case. Thereafter, the Addl. CIT first examines the seized material, applies his mind and then after going through the draft assessment order, he issues approval u/s 153D of the Act to pass the assessment order through his letter sent to AO. In this process, the assessee ... Income Tax Act, 1961 during the block assessment of assessee company. Hence, the approval given by the Range Head with respect to the draft assessment order proposed by the AO cannot be termed as mechanical. Further, in view of the above as per the CBDT guidelines stated above

Sgb Brandsafway Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -3 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 84/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: C.A. K.C. Devdas, C.A. P. Kranthi & C.AFor Respondent: : Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

vide his order dated 29.01.2021 suggested upward adjustment of Rs.63,50,009/-. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order on 30.03.2021. 3. Aggrieved with draft assessment order passed by Ld. AO, the assessee preferred objections before the Ld. DRP. In pursuant to the direction

Income Tax Officer ( International Taxation ) Ward Coimbatore, Coimbatore vs. Vijayakumar Murthy, Erode

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1588/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1588/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Vijayakumar Murthy, International Taxation, 110/3, Mudaliyaar Thottam, Ward, Vinayagar Koil Street-1, Coimbatore 641 018. Modapalayam Railway Colony, Tamil Nadu 638 002. [Pan: Aexpv 8817R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Preeti Goel (Virtual) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Ashwin D. Gowda, Irs, Addl.Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Ms. Preeti Goel (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D. Gowda, IRS, Addl.CIT
Section 10(14)(i)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 5Section 6(1)Section 69ASection 90

later on transferred the case to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer concerned. Complying with the notices, a draft Assessment Order was issued. A final order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.05.2022 was passed after assessing the entire gross total salary as per Form-16, taxable in India under

3F Industries Limited, Tadepalligudem vs. Assistant Commisssioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 275/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.275/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2020-21) 3F Industries Limited, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of P.B. No. 15, Tanuku Road, Income Tax, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari Circle-1, District, Andhra Pradesh-534101. Rajahmundry. Pan: Aaacf2643K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Suvibha Nolkha, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of : 30/10/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Suvibha Nolkha, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92E

92CA(3) of the Act and passed the order dated 23/07/2023. Aggrieved by the adjustment made by the Ld. TPO and against the draft assessment order dated 29/09/2023, the assessee raised its objections before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru [“Ld. DRP”]. The Ld. DRP, after hearing the submissions

Daechang Seat Co Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, International Taxation 1(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1301/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1301/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Daechang Seat Co Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 491, Mannur Village, Valarpuram V. Income Tax, Post, Sriperumbudur Tk, International Taxation 1(1), Kancheepuram District – 602 105. Chennai. [Pan: Aadcd-4448-B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Shreyansh Kumar Kochar, Ca : Smt. M.S. Deeptha, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Shreyansh Kumar Kochar, CA
Section 143(1)Section 250

received a sum of Rs.5,22,88,362/- from its subsidiaries after deducting TDS @ 10%. We noted that the Assessing Officer in his draft assessment order passed on 29.12.2017 treated the guarantee fee as ‘other income’ by observing as under:- “The Guarantee agreement is entered into for the limited purpose

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-3-1-1, Mumbai vs. Ms. Samsonite South Asia Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4231/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram Sr. Advocate & ShashiFor Respondent: Dr, Kishore Dhule – CIT D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

after considering the submission disallowed advertising and sales promotion expenses of Rs.10,66,27,140/-. On receipt of the draft assessment order, the assessee indicated the Ld. AO to file the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the final assessment order making disallowance

Sanjay Kumar Prop Shree Balaji Oil Mil, Bhiwani vs. DCIT Central Circle-I, Gurgaon

In the result, the approvals granted in the cases before us are established to be invalid and consequential assessments not sustainable

ITA 429/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 Sanjay Kumar, Vs Dcit, Prop. Shree Balaji Oil Mill, Central Circle-I, Ch. Dadri, Raillway Road, Gurgaon. Bhiwani, Haryana – 127 306. Pan: Aicpk8564H Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sunil Gupta, Vs Dcit, Prop. M/S Op Cotton & Oil Mills, Central Circle-I, Charkhi Dadri, Gurgaon. Bhiwani, Haryana. Pan: Aerpp6633H

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CA &For Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT-DR
Section 127(2)Section 153D

there was no independent application of mind. He does not mention that as approving authority he had perused the draft assessment order. 4.4 As with regard to the ITA No.1400/Del/2023 Ld. AR has submitted that the very fact that by one stroke approval for six assessee was given establishes ... This all has been countered by the ld. DR by submitting that when the letter seeking approvals is seen, the AO had sent draft assessment order in the case of these assessee along with the relevant assessment records to the approving authority and based upon the same, the approvals have

Asra Ahmed, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 157/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 48Section 56

additions towards cash consideration over and above the sale consideration as per provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, and passed draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) on 31.03.2023, determining total income at Rs.4,11,26,293/-. 4. The assessee has filed objections against draft assessment order before ... with the said provision. As per the provision of section 144C, in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall pass a draft assessment order and served on the assessee, if he propose to make any variation in his total income. The assessee, after receipt of draft assessment order

Syed Ahmed Zeeshanuddin, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 156/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.156/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 48Section 56

additions towards cash consideration over and above the sale consideration as per provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, and passed draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) on 31.03.2023, determining total income at Rs.4,11,26,293/-. 4. The assessee has filed objections against draft assessment order before ... with the said provision. As per the provision of section 144C, in case of an eligible assessee, the Assessing Officer shall pass a draft assessment order and served on the assessee, if he propose to make any variation in his total income. The assessee, after receipt of draft assessment order

Dhanaji Mahadev Thakur, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward -3 Panvel, Raigad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4284/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dhanaji Mahadev Thakur Ito Ward-3 House No. 253, Dhutum Post Jasai Uran Panvel Raigad, Taluka, District – Raigad, Vs. Maharashtra-410 206 Navi Mumbai-410 206

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh DashFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(vii)

applicable for the A.Y. 2012-13 and assessee ? b Whether the Assessing Officer erred by failing to issue a draft assessment order prior to the final assessment order, as mandated by the provisions of Section 144C, thereby rendering the final order null and void? 4. The brief facts are that

G D Goenka Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3609/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 153ASection 153D

adverted to approval dated 29.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-4, New Delhi under Section 153D of the Act to the draft Assessment Orders placed before him by the AO. The ld. Counsel pointed out that a combined & consolidated approval has been given to as many ... Goenka Pvt. Ltd. 3.3 The ld. Counsel next pointed out that non-application of mind and approval of symbolic nature to the draft Assessment Order is also self-evident. Despite the fact that even the assessed income has not been measured and quantified in the Assessment Order under challenge

G D Goenka Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3608/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 153ASection 153D

adverted to approval dated 29.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-4, New Delhi under Section 153D of the Act to the draft Assessment Orders placed before him by the AO. The ld. Counsel pointed out that a combined & consolidated approval has been given to as many ... Goenka Pvt. Ltd. 3.3 The ld. Counsel next pointed out that non-application of mind and approval of symbolic nature to the draft Assessment Order is also self-evident. Despite the fact that even the assessed income has not been measured and quantified in the Assessment Order under challenge

G D Goenka Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, Delhi

In the result, all the captioned appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3607/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 153ASection 153D

adverted to approval dated 29.12.2019 granted by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-4, New Delhi under Section 153D of the Act to the draft Assessment Orders placed before him by the AO. The ld. Counsel pointed out that a combined & consolidated approval has been given to as many ... Goenka Pvt. Ltd. 3.3 The ld. Counsel next pointed out that non-application of mind and approval of symbolic nature to the draft Assessment Order is also self-evident. Despite the fact that even the assessed income has not been measured and quantified in the Assessment Order under challenge

Ashok Kumar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Int. Tax, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 343/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Deshmukh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 69

matter. The issue of validity of notice issued under section 148 was not raised as part of the objections against the draft assessment order before the Ld. DRP. The Appellant submits that the issue raised in the additional grounds of appeal goes to the core of the jurisdiction ... Prior to this, the assessment was proposed to be completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144C of the Act and draft assessment order was passed on 29-03- I.T.A No. 343/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No. 4 Ashok Kumar vs. ITO 2023. In response to the draft order proposing

Ups Asia Group Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) -4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4797/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ups Asia Group Pte. Ltd., Asst. Cit (International Taxation)- Bhagwati Compound, Plot No. 2, 4(3)(1), Vs. Compartment 10/11, Marol Co- 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Operative Industrial Estate, Off M.V. Nariman Point, Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Aabcu 5192 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Anil Sant, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)

profit be attributed thereto in and profit be attributed thereto in the relevant assessment ye the relevant assessment year. In the draft assessment order dated 20.12.2022, the Assessing Officer the draft assessment order dated 20.12.2022, the Assessing Officer the draft assessment order dated 20.12.2022, the Assessing Officer held that assessee ... India Singapore DTAA. 11(2) of the India Singapore DTAA. The assessee filed objection The assessee filed objections against the draft assessment order against the draft assessment order before the Ld. DRP, , however could not succeed. Aggrieved not succeed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3316/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – Ltd., Circle 3(2)(2), Vs. C/O S R B C & Associates Llp, 14Th 16Th Floor, Room No. 1615, Air India Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Building Nariman Point, Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aadcm 5927 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Moti LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Somogyan Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253

Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee in his Ld. Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee in his draft assessment order passed on 21.09.2022. The relevant draft assessment order passed on 21.09.2022. The relevant draft assessment order passed on 21.09.2022. The relevant observations of the Assessing Officer

Deutsche India Pvt. Ltd.(Earlier Known As 'Dboi Global Services Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for 16

ITA 2522/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

donation paid to such institutions, etc., are eligible under section 80G of the Act. The Assessing Officer (“AO”), vide draft assessment order dated 23/09/2021 passed under section 144C(1) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that under section 80G the “sums paid” need

DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi vs. Shiv Kumar Nayyar, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2462/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.1986 & 1987/िद"ी/2022 (िन.व. 2016-17 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, Chartered Accountant &For Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153D

completed the assessment on 30.12.2018 u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act and on the same date the AO forwarded the draft assessment order for approval to Addl. CIT. The Addl. CIT on 30.12.2018 itself granted approval u/s. 153D of the Act in a mechanical manner without any application ... further stated that a perusal of the approval granted by the Addl.CIT would show that the Addl.CIT has not even mentioned that draft assessment order has been pursued by him. Thus, the bare minimum requirement for approving authority to go through the draft order has not been undertaken