← 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

Nice Interactive Solutions India Private Limited, Pune, Maharashtra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 719/BANG/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Aliasgar Rampurwala, CA &
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

should atleast be in proportion to the turnover. Hence the same is reallocated based on the turnover ratio. 2.6 The Ld.AO accordingly issued draft assessment order containing disallowance of the deduction of Rs. 3.15,00,294/- claimed u/s 10AA of the Act for the year under consideration vide show cause

Clinasia Labs Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward1(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 202/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Shri Nemichand Sirvi, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 92C

Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal on the basis of the order of the TPO and the AO passed draft assessment order. Challenging the draft assessment order, the assessee has raised objections before the DRP and the DRP has issued directions rejecting the claim of the assessee ... Further, we note that the DRP have also mentioned that the assessee had included various comparables which were selected after passing of the draft assessment order and hence, cannot be considered. 25. In our considered opinion, the assessee has raised the pleas of inclusion of the companies herein above

Caterpillar India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-1, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2749/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2749/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. Dcit 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit-1 Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai. Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.22/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.2749/Chny/2017) (िनधा;रण वष; / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit M/S. Caterpillar India P. Ltd. बनाम/ 7Th Floor, International Tech Park, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai-34. Taramani Road, Taramani, Vs. Chennai-600 113. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcc-4615-K (Cross-Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A.Sasikumar (Cit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.P.Chidambaram (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Sasikumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Price (ALP). The Ld. TPO passed an order u/s 92CA(3) on 25.10.2016 proposing certain Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment. Incorporating the same, a draft assessment order was passed on 27.12.2016 which was subjected to assessee’s objections before Ld. DRP. Pursuant to the directions of Ld. DRP, final assessment order ... computer software then the excess depreciation to be disallowed would be Rs. 18,33,078 as against Rs.23,97,707 disallowed in the draft assessment order. 26. Ground on Non grant of balance additional depreciation > The learned AO and the Hon'ble DRP have erred in not allowing balance additional

Inmobi Technology Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by assessee for AY

ITA 303/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

financing transaction that requires an arm's length interest charge 14,72,86,347 TOTAL 66,79,12,599 4.5 The Ld.AO passed draft assessment order dated 12.04.2021 incorporating the above proposed TP adjustments and assessed the income of the assessee. 4.6 Aggrieved by the above orders of the Ld.AO ... root cause, which may primarily be considered. He submitted that vide the additional grounds the assessee challenges the validity of the Draft assessment order, the DRP direction and the Final assessment order to be passed beyond the period of limitation. 5.1 The Ld.Sr.Counsel referred to application dated 07.06.2022 filed

Janaki Thangam Educationnel Trust, Chennai vs. ITO (Exemptions) Ward 3, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1630/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1617 & 1630/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Janaki Thangam The Income Tax Officer Educational Trust, Vs. (Exemptions), Plot No.9, Sanathana Srinivasa Ward 3, Perumal Koil Street, Chennai. Tnhb Special Scheme, Mogappair West, Chennai – 600 037. Pan: Aaatj 5734C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Seetharaman, Ca Shri B. Gowthaman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147

that also falling on Sunday. The ld.AR for the assessee stated that the entire premise of CIT(A)-NFAC is on draft assessment order issued on 26.03.2022 but there is no discussion on merits of the case. The ld.AR pointed out to para 4.2.2 and para

Janaki Thangam Educationnel Trust, Chennai vs. ITO (Exemptions) Ward-3, Chenai, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1617/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1617 & 1630/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Janaki Thangam The Income Tax Officer Educational Trust, Vs. (Exemptions), Plot No.9, Sanathana Srinivasa Ward 3, Perumal Koil Street, Chennai. Tnhb Special Scheme, Mogappair West, Chennai – 600 037. Pan: Aaatj 5734C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Seetharaman, Ca Shri B. Gowthaman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147

that also falling on Sunday. The ld.AR for the assessee stated that the entire premise of CIT(A)-NFAC is on draft assessment order issued on 26.03.2022 but there is no discussion on merits of the case. The ld.AR pointed out to para 4.2.2 and para

ITO (It) TDS-2, Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 225/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: FixedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri P. C. Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

form part of the paper book filed by the assessee having pages 1-15. The Addl. CIT, Range-2(3), Mumbai, passed the draft assessment order on 24/12/2010 and impugned final assessment order on 28/10/2011. 5. The learned Sr. Counsel by referring to the provisions of section ... objection on the issue of jurisdiction was raised by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The learned DR submitted that even the draft assessment order dated 24/12/2010, for the assessment year 2007-08, passed by the Addl. CIT mentions that the case was assigned to the Addl

DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Siemens Ag, Mumbai

ITA 2179/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10
Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)

grounds before us is, whether the said arrangement will constitute AoP between the assessee, Seimens AG and Siemens Ltd. 24. In the draft assessment order, the ld. AO has alleged that the income earned by the assessee from BS03 contract is in the nature of composite contract and the income

Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2153/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI B R BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 9(1)(vi)

grounds before us is, whether the said arrangement will constitute AoP between the assessee, Seimens AG and Siemens Ltd. 24. In the draft assessment order, the ld. AO has alleged that the income earned by the assessee from BS03 contract is in the nature of composite contract and the income ... However, pursuant to ld. DRP’s direction, the ld. AO while passing the final assessment order replicated the entire text from the draft assessment order and followed the DRP directions of non- taxability of offshore supplies in the hands of assessee. While the DRP's directions regarding the non-taxability

Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8707/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri P. C. Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

form part of the paper book filed by the assessee having pages 1-15. The Addl. CIT, Range-2(3), Mumbai, passed the draft assessment order on 24/12/2010 and impugned final assessment order on 28/10/2011. 5. The learned Sr. Counsel by referring to the provisions of section ... objection on the issue of jurisdiction was raised by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The learned DR submitted that even the draft assessment order dated 24/12/2010, for the assessment year 2007-08, passed by the Addl. CIT mentions that the case was assigned to the Addl

Gurvinder Singh Duggal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 863/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

granting the approval had not even bothered to look into the facts and figures qua the assessee concerned and had merely approved the draft assessment order in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. Further, he drew attention to page 2 of the paper book containing the approval granted ... JCIT on 30.12.2019, wherein, it had been categorically mentioned that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld JCIT on 30.12.2019 and the same were duly approved by the ld JCIT on 30.12.2019 itself. For the sake of convenience, the approval granted by the ld JCIT is reproduced below

Gurvinder Singh Duggal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 862/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

granting the approval had not even bothered to look into the facts and figures qua the assessee concerned and had merely approved the draft assessment order in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. Further, he drew attention to page 2 of the paper book containing the approval granted ... JCIT on 30.12.2019, wherein, it had been categorically mentioned that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld JCIT on 30.12.2019 and the same were duly approved by the ld JCIT on 30.12.2019 itself. For the sake of convenience, the approval granted by the ld JCIT is reproduced below

Gurvinder Singh Duggal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 861/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

granting the approval had not even bothered to look into the facts and figures qua the assessee concerned and had merely approved the draft assessment order in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. Further, he drew attention to page 2 of the paper book containing the approval granted ... JCIT on 30.12.2019, wherein, it had been categorically mentioned that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld JCIT on 30.12.2019 and the same were duly approved by the ld JCIT on 30.12.2019 itself. For the sake of convenience, the approval granted by the ld JCIT is reproduced below

Gurvinder Singh Duggal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-06, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 860/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 154Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

granting the approval had not even bothered to look into the facts and figures qua the assessee concerned and had merely approved the draft assessment order in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. Further, he drew attention to page 2 of the paper book containing the approval granted ... JCIT on 30.12.2019, wherein, it had been categorically mentioned that the draft assessment orders were sent to the ld JCIT on 30.12.2019 and the same were duly approved by the ld JCIT on 30.12.2019 itself. For the sake of convenience, the approval granted by the ld JCIT is reproduced below

Daeseung Autoparts India Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. ACIT (OSD), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 752/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.752/Chny/2017 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Daeseung Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Osd) Plot No,474, Mannur Village, Corporate Range-1, बनाम/ Vs. Valarpuram Post, Sriperumpudhur Taluk Chennai. Kanchipuram- 602 105. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccd-5629-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri G. Suresh (Jcit)- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh (JCIT)- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 92C

certain Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment. The assessee preferred rectification u/s 154 which were disposed-off vide order dated 07.03.2016. Incorporating the same, a draft assessment order was passed on 15.03.2016 which was subjected to assessee’s objections before Ld. DRP. Pursuant to the directions of Ld. DRP, final assessment order

Embassy One Developers Private Limited, Bangalore, India vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore, India

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

ITA 312/BANG/2024[AY 2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

Assessee. Initially, the Assessing Officer IT(TP)A No.312/Bang/2024 Embassy One Developers Private Limited, Bangalore Page 4 of 10 passed a draft assessment order dated 27.03.2023, incorporating the aforesaid adjustment. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed its objections before the DRP which, vide its order dated vide its directions dated 08.12.2023, granted ... Having considered the submissions, the Panel perused the written submissions of the Assessee and conclusions reached by the AO in the draft assessment order. 2.1.4.2 It is noticed that the Assessee's determined ALP for the interest rate is based on unreliable and incorrect data. The financial years

Johnson & Johnson Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-57 Income Tax Departmetnt, Mumbai

ITA 364/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 253

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Hapag-Llyod Aktiengesellschaft, Mumbai vs. DCIT-International Taxation-2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4535/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan GovindekarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 44B

Tribunal for the assessment year 2007-08, which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court. 5. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide draft assessment order dated 19/12/2022 passed under section 144C(1) of the Act did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the decision

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors Bv, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Intl. Tax Circle - 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4533/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Darshan KoikarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 244ASection 270A

alia, submitted that the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in earlier years. 6. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) vide draft assessment order dated 20/12/2022 passed under section 144C(1) of the Act after taking consideration the provisions of the Service Agreement dated 01/04/2004 held that

Syed Gulam Mohiuddin, Hyderabad vs. ITO, International Taxation-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 136/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.136/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Syed Gulam Vs. Income Tax Officer Mohiuddin (International Taxation)-1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Decpm0365H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 12.01.2023 Of The Learned Assessing Officer (International Taxation-1), Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: “1. The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1,Hyd (Herein After Referred To As 'Ao) Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 69

cash payment was made as claimed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer after considering the submission of the assessee passed the draft assessment order u/s 144C of the Act on 8.12.2021 and made addition of Rs.22.00 lakhs as unexplained investment towards cash payment for purchase of property. The assessee ... filed objection before the DRP against the draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. The DRP-1 Bengaluru vide their direction issued u/s 144C(1) of the Act dated 12.12.2022 has rejected the arguments of the assessee and upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards cash payment