“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

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

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

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

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

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

Vishnu Kumar, Bharatpur vs. ACIT Or JCIT Or DCIT Or Asst. CIT Or ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Bharatpur

ITA 85/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Dated 08.12.2023 Passed, U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “ The Act”), By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Whereby His Appeal Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 Has Been Dismissed. 2. The Assessee Was Before Learned Cit(A), Having Felt Dissatisfied With The Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, (CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

jurisdiction to assume jurisdiction under section 143(2) of the Act. Sufficient time not provided to file objections to the Show Cause Notice & Draft Assessment Order 22. Another contention raised on behalf of the assessee is that after service of show cause notice & draft assessment order, upon ... para 13 of the assessment order needs to be reproduced, and is reproduced for ready reference:- “13. A show cause notice along with Draft Assessment Order was issued to assessee on 27.03.2022. The assessee was requested to furnish his reply in response to the show cause notice. However, he failed

Shell Information Technologies International Bv, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(1), Mumba

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4711/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrishell Information V/S. Dcit (International Tax)- Technology International बनाम 4(2)(1), Bv 17Th Floor, Room No. 1708, C/O. Bsr & Co. Llp, Air India Building, 2Nd Floor, Lodha Excelus, Nariman Point, Apollo Mills Compound, Mumbai-400021 N.M. Joshi Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai-400011 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics9091A Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Shaileja Rai

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 2(24)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

Shell Group entities. The return declaring total income of Rs. 49,51,493/- was filed on 09.03.2022. The AO issued the draft assessment order dated 30.12.2022 u/s 144C proposing assessment of total income at Rs. 10,26,21,44,575/-. After considering the objections of the assessee ... issue which is recorded in Para 53 as under: "5.3 Discussions and directions of DRP 5.3.1 We have considered the draft assessment order, submissions of assessee and material. We have seen that under the Master Services Agreement, the assessee SITI BV has furnished technical and advisory services to various clients

Atomstroyexport C/O Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4662/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Atomstroyexport Dy. Cit(It) C/O. Nuclear Power Corporation Of Circle-1(1)(2), Room No. 517, 5Th Floor, Air India Building, India Ltd. Vs. 16, Centre 1, World Trade Centre, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Pan/Gir No. Aafca 3658 N (Assessee) : (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 44BSection 9(1)

fees for technical services’, royalty income @ 10% of tax prescribed in the tax treaty between India and Russia. The ld. A.O. passed the draft assessment order dated 3 Atomstroyexport vs. Dy. CIT(IT) 29.12.2022 u/s. 144C(1) of the Act, proposing an addition on deemed income u/s. 44BBB

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Midtown Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2859/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

Rs.994,30,63,961/- and adjustment of interest paid to AEs on CCD/OCD of Rs.18,86,01,139/-. 5. The Learned AO passed Draft Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act, on 22/12/2019 wherein income of the appellant company was proposed to be assessed at a total

Dlf Midtown P. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed and appeal of Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1963/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92BSection 92C

Aashiyana Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Roym/S Aashiyana Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Buildmartpvt. Ltd. Income Tax, B-20, 21, 22, Central Circle, Noida Sector-16, Noida, Uttar Pradesh - 201301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aagca1134L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sujit Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

said document which clearly establishes the fact of granting approval of 110 cases at a time. Nowhere of the said documentsspeaks about draft assessment orders were perused/verified/examined or that there was any independent application of mind by the approving authority. If that view of the matter, the approval ... draft assessment order is invalid and P a g e | 4 M/s Aashiyana Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CC non-nest in the eye of law. The final assessment on the basis of invalid approval is, therefore, liable to be quashed as the crux of the arguments advanced

Mr. Ganesh Ayodhyaprasad Jaiswal, Nanded vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Nanded

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 732/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 44A

Balance Sheet, bank statement and copy of Licence on 23.11.2021. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice along with draft assessment order on 19.03.2022 asking for further details as per the notice on or before 22.03.2022. Since, there was no response from the side of the assessee, therefore

Mr. Ganesh Ayodhyaprasad Jaiswal, Nanded vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Nanded

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 731/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 44A

Mr. Ganesh Ayodhyaprasad Jaiswal, Nanded vs. Assessing Officer, Ward, Nanded

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 729/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 44A

Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Jaipur, Ncr Building, Statue Circle Jaipur vs. Vasudev Hemrajani, Arjun Nagar, Jaipur

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 634/JPR/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka, CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

matter, it is submitted that ld. AO picked up one image from the documents furnished, which is pasted at page 5 of the draft assessment order and is a “Bilty” issued by transporter transporting the produce and not an invoice as alleged and inferred of purchasing 205 qtl. Lemon from

Tyco Electronics Singapore Pte Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle- Int. Tax. 3(1)(1), Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1760/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Tyco Electronics Singapore Vs Dcit, Pte Limited, Circle Intl. Taxation Te Park-22B, Doddenakundi 3(1)(1), 2Nd Phase Industrial Area, Delhi. Whitefield Road, Bengaluru – 560 048, Karnataka. Pan: Aadct9910C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate & Ms Somya Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, It-Dr & Shri Anshul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 23.06.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By Assessing Officer, Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(1), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, IT-DR &

Section 143(3)

components. The return of assessee was picked for complete scrutiny and AO had made addition of Rs. 211,61,53,235/- in the draft assessment order. The AO had denied assessee, being a tax resident of Singapore, to be eligible for the benefit as provided by the India-Singapore DTAA ... inquiry was independently conducted to rebut the statutory evidence of tax residency. 5. If we appreciate the draft assessment order, it also puts the burden on the assessee that the assessee has failed to conclusively establish its eligibility for exemption of taxability of LTCG in India on sale of shares

Guptha Infraventures and Constructions Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 522/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2018-19 Guptha Infraventures & Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Constructions Private Limited, Circle – 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aafcg5045F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca (Appeared Through Virtual Hearing) Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, CAFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.A.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

capital along with other details. As the assessee has not provided any information, Assessing Officer had issued a show cause notice along with draft assessment order proposing addition of Rs.50,00,000/- towards unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act on 16.04.2021. In response, 3 assessee submitted that

Amanullah, Indore vs. Assessment Unit NFAC, Indore

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

ITA 240/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore04 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniamanullah Nfac 83/3, Juna Risala, Delhi Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Apipa0680H Assessee By Shri Manish Dafria, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04.09.2024

Section 147

fact that assessment order passed by Ld. AO was bad in law as much as the same has been passed without sharing draft assessment order with the assessee, which was required as per faceless Assessment Scheme.” 6. Ld. AR of the assesse has submitted that the AO has reopened

Ihs Global Private Limited, Srj Park, Tower One, Mobius Bk vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

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

ITA 295/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri DK Mishra, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 153(5)Section 254Section 92C

relevant additional ground of appeal reads as under: “5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law , the draft assessment order dated February 17, 2023, passed under section 143(3) read with section 254 read with section 144B of the Income ... Department is passed beyond the time limit prescribed under section 153(5) of the Act and hence all proceedings consequent to such draft assessment order including final assessment order dated December 25, 2023 are void-ab- initio, illegal and bad in law and deserves to be quashed

Jagadeesan, Mani vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Tax )- Ward 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 495/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Jagadeesan Mani Ito (Int. Tax)-Ward 3(2)(1) Room No. 1627, 16Th Floor, P O Box No. 2606, Ruwi, Ruwi, Ruwi, Ruwi, 112, Oman Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kukreja/Punit ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

assessee’s case on the belief that the income has escaped assessment for the year under consideration. The ld. A.O. then passed the draft assessment order dated 28.03.2023 u/s. 144C(1) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, determining the total income at Rs.1,41,89,550/- after making addition/disallowance ... heed to by the ld. A.O. The ld. AR further stated that the Hon’ble DRP has erred in rejecting the original draft assessment order passed by the ld. A.O. which was on irrelevant facts and in replacing the same by the directions of the panel, pursuant to which

M.G.Metalloy P.Ltd, Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 650/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: the ld. CIT (A) and before ld. CIT (A), assessee has raised several jurisdictional issues on the issue of scope of jurisdiction of section 153A and also raised the issue of provisions of section 153D of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT (A) dismissed the jurisdictional issue and partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.7. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

DCIT/cc/Noida/S&S/1530/20 16-17/2623 Dated : 30.12.2016 To, The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, Aayakar Bhawan,Bhainsali Ground, Meerut. Sir, Sub: Draft assessment orders u/s 153A1153C/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in Apple Group (D.O.S 11111/2014)- Approval u/s 153D of the I.T. Act, 1961- regarding. Please find ... Iron Enterprises AAHCA8642G 2010-11 to 2013-14 Pvt. Ltd. 18 M/s. Mastermind Trade-in- AAECM9435E 2009-10 to 2015-16 Private Ltd Draft assessment order received Late i.e. on 31/12/2016 Yours sincerely Beyond the time as per internal Action Plan. --sd-- And thus having a very little time/ almost