“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

M/S Luxmi Builders, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 451/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

seized record was ever forwarded, that he never approved any questionnaire, show cause notice or never officially inspected the assessment records, that the draft assessment order was forwarded to him only on 24.12.2018, which was granted approval on the same day, the ld CIT(A) held that ... matter of record that the AO has forwarded the draft assessment order to the Addl. CIT 24.12.2018 vide letter no 2360 to seek the approval u/s 153D of the Act which was accorded on 24.12.2018. From the perusal of contents of the letter of the AO sent to the Addl.CIT

Microchip Technology (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(1), Bmtc Building, Koramangala

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

ITA 817/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Biju M.K., CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 25oSection 270ASection 37Section 92C

circumstances of the case and in law, learned AO erred in not quoting a valid computer- generated DIN on the body of draft assessment order dated 20 September 2021, in contravention to the Circular No. 19 of 2019 by the CBDT, thus rendering such an order to be invalid ... dated 27 September 2021 passed by learned AO under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act pursuant to invalid and non-est draft assessment order, is bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Dreamz Infrastructure, Amravati vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 48/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 68

returned income which are Dreamz Ifrastructure Rallies Plots ITA no.48/Nag./2023 S.A. no.1/Nag./2024 prejudicial to the interest of assessee, without issuing draft assessment order and without providing opportunity to show cause though it is mandatory as per the provisions of law. The assessment made by AO is arbitrary, high

Kennametal India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 506/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 92C

towards the manufacturing segment. Additionally, the TPO determined a TP adjustment of Rs. 15,80,901/-, being interest on delayed receivables. Initially, a draft assessment order dated 31.05.2021 came to be passed by the Assessing Officer (‘AO’ for short), in which the aforesaid TP adjustment was incorporated. Aggrieved, the Assessee

Accel India Venture Fund II L.P., Cayman Islands vs. ACIT Circle-1(1)(1) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2655/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Accel India Ventures Fund Ii Vs. Acit (International Taxation), L.P. Cayman Islands, Circle-1(1)(1), Walkers, 190 Elgin Avenue, New Delhi George Town, Grand Cayman Ky1 -9001, George Town, Not Listed 999999 Pan :Abpfa4451K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. T. Suryanarayana, Sr. Advocate Department By Sh. Vijay B. Vasanta, Cit(Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

other words, the entire capital gain on sale of shares of WIBMO was added to the income of the assessee while framing the draft assessment order. Against the draft assessment order so passed, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. Learned DRP disposed of the objections issuing certain directions ... Assessing Officer. However, in the final assessment order, the Assessing Officer repeated the additions made in the draft assessment order. 7. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that, though, at the draft assessment stage, the assessee had furnished a preliminary draft valuation report, however, before

Chemtex Global Engineers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-15(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4626/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessee's own case for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide which the Ld. DRP has directed the AO to modify the draft assessment order and to treat the expenses în question as revenue in nature. The, operative part of the order of the Ld. CIT (A) reads as under

Income Tax Officer, Yavatmal vs. Sanjay Bansilal Jaiswal, Yavatmal

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 324/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

current account held with Yavatmal Urban Co.op. Bank Ltd. remained unexplained. Therefore, a show- cause notice along with draft assessment order proposing to add Rs.8,59,21,510/- as unexplained cash credits to the total income of the assessee was issued by the AO on 22.2.2021. The assessee was required

Rita Sunil Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4070/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm The Income Tax Officer(It) Sunil Amritlal Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Hvnps5321F The Income Tax Officer(It) Rita Sunil Shah 4(2)(1) C/O Vimal Punimiya & Room No. 1708, Co.,501, 17Th Floor, Vs. Niranjan, Air India Building, 99, Marine Drive, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400002 Mumbai 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djgps8073B

For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash–

Section 142Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

date of purchase agreement 25/7/2009 as date purchase of property , the deduction under section 54 of the act was not allowed. 012. Thus, draft assessment order under section 144C (1) of the act was passed on 30/12/2022 determining total income of the assessee at ₹ 3,597,395/–.The assessee approached

Sunil Amritlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer(It) 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4069/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2011-12

For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash–

Section 142Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(Internationa Taxation)-Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3416/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Respondent: Ajay Kumar Sharma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 270A

Circle 1(3)(1) Rs.546,63,91,110/-. The case of the assessee was subject to scrutiny assessment and the assessing officer issued draft assessment order on 29.09.2022 u/s 144C of the Income Tax Act 1961 proposing assessment with certain variations on the following issue: (Gi) Issue of rate ... India- France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’) read with clause 7 of the Protocol to the DTAA. The AO vide draft assessment order did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and held that the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation

Conferencecall Services India Private Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.319/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Conferencecall – The Dy. Commissioner- Services India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No.135, 1St Floor, Corporate Circle-1(2), Old Airport Road, Chennai. Bangalore-560 017. [Pan: Aaccc 6574 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adhak (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

downward adjustment of Rs.7,53,90,367/- in respect of the international transaction of the assessee. Pursuant thereto, the AO passed the draft assessment order on 26.12.2016 computing total income of the assessee at Rs.48,75,73,688/- in place of the returned income of Rs.37,23,48,860/-. Against ... proposed addition made in draft assessment order, the assessee filed objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (hereinafter ‘the DRP’) and the DRP was pleased to reject the objections of the assessee on 08.09.2017, thereby, confirmed the adjustment made by the TPO to the extent of Rs.7

Mcafee Software India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 110/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Aliasgar Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Satish Meriga, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 25oSection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

Addition of Rs.3,73,057 u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act 4. Later, the Draft Assessment Order (DAO) was passed on 30.09.2021, wherein the adjustment made u/s 143(1) of the Act was not incorporated. In the draft assessment order, the A.O. had incorporated the T.P. adjustment ... figures from the intimation u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act instead of the returned income (which are not subject matter of adjudication in draft assessment order and DRP's directions). In other words, the A.O. has adopted figure of Rs.114,48,71,340 (computation as per intimation

Home Credit International A.S., Czech Republic vs. Assistant. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2068/DEL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

receipts cannot be taxed as royalty. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the submissions of the assessee. While framing the draft assessment order, he was of the view that in terms with the agreement, assessee’s group entity in India has not merely acquired software licences ... receipts are to be treated as royalty. Accordingly, he brought to tax the amount of Rs. 28,79,76,683/-. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. While disposing of the objections, learned DRP observed that the Assessing Officer has not illustrated

Venkatesh Bomma, Hyderabad vs. ITO., (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 62/HYD/2024[A Y 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.62/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sri Venkatesh Bomma Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad (International Taxation)-1 Pan:Afhpb6561K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Rajeshwara Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 09/05/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Rajeshwara Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)

Section 144(1)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

served on the assessee from time to time, but the assessee neither appeared nor filed any details. Therefore, the Assessing Officer passed the draft assessment order u/s 144(1) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, dated 22.8.2022 and determined the total income at Rs.32,09,200 towards computation of Long ... without allowing deduction towards the cost of acquisition of the property in absence of necessary details. 4. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee has filed objection before the DRP-1 Bengaluru. Before the DRP, the assessee has furnished certain additional evidences including copy of the sale deed dated

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Essar Ports Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 406/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 14ASection 4A

submissions along with case laws made by the Appellant. It is observed that the A.O initially in the draft assessment order passed u/s. 144C(1) rws 143(3) of the Act dated 15.02.2019, had worked out the disallowance u/s 14A r wr 8D at Rs.33.47,01,107/- However, the assessee ... revised return of income of the assessee was not considered by the A.O. As observed hereinabove, the A.O. initially in his draft assessment order passed under Sec. 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3), dated 18.03.2014, had worked out the disallowance under Sec. 14A r.w.r

Six Continents Hotels, Inc., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 3(1)(2) Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2355/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

third- party Indian hotels to IHG India. Assessment Order and ld. DRP directions for A.Y. 2020-21 12. The AO passed the draft assessment order for A.Y. 2020- 21 on the same line as in A.Y. 2012-13 onwards, alleging that marketing and reservation related receipts are ancillary and subsidiary

Key Point Technologies (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 252/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha, G. Hon’Ble Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 Key Point Technologies Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (India) Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Rajaprasadamu, Circle – 2(1), Level 2, Wing 1B & 2, Hyderabad. Botanical Gardens Road, Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500 084. Pan : Aadck1115A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2016-17 Arises From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.23.04.2021 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Development Of Mobile Application Software – User Interface Technology. The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2016-17 On 30.11.2016 Admitting A Loss Of Rs.84,13,338/- & Deemed Total Income U/S 115Jb Of The Act Was Admitted At (-) Rs.84,83,289/-. The Return Filed Was Taken Up For Limited Scrutiny To Verify Whether Value Of International Transactions Is Correctly Shown In Form 3Ceb & Return Of Income. Accordingly, A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 17.07.2017. In Response To The Notices, Assessee Furnished Information Called For & The Same Was Verified.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on 26.10.2019 computing the total adjustments u/s 92CA at Rs.4,67,63,043/- and accordingly, a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act dt.22.11.2019 was sent to the assessee, who filed objections before the DRP. Thereafter, DRP passed order u/s 144C

The Lankalakoderu Large Size Co-Operative Credit Society Limited No 1904, Palakoderu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palakol

ITA 86/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.85/Viz/2024 & 86/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2020-21) The Lankalakoderu Large Size Co- Vs. Income Tax Officer Operative Credit Society Ltd. Ward-1, Income Tax Office No.1904, Palakoderu Mandal Aayakar Bhavan West Godavari Dist. Doddipatla Road [Pan : Aacat5595N] Palakol (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(AA)Section 80P(2)(a)

documents. In response, the assessee filed submissions on 09.01.2021 and 18.01.2021, which were examined by the AO and a show cause notice cum draft assessment order was issued on 21.01.2021. After considering the reply filed by the assessee dated 27.01.2021, the AO denied the deduction

The Lankalakoderu Large Size Co-Operative Credit Society Limited No 1904, Palakoderu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palkol

ITA 85/VIZ/2024[201819]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 May 2024

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(AA)Section 80P(2)(a)

M/S. Naturex India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi DCIT-Cir 2(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 540/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Naturex India Pvt. Ltd. 502, 5Th Floor, Akruti Centre Point, Midc Central Road, Andheri (East), Chakala Midc S.O. Mumbai-400093 Pan: Aabcv0883A ..... Appellant Vs. Nfac, Delhi/Dcit Cir. 2(3) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, Shri AmolFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92

therefore, is void-ab-initio, bad in law and is liable to be quashed. It is humble prayer of the Appellant that the draft assessment order and the final assessment order are bad in law, null and void and liable to be quashed. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter ... directions of the Ld. DRP passed u/s. 144C (5) preferred the present appeal before us. 4. We have gone through the draft assessment order alongwith the report of TPO, directions of the Ld. DRP, final assessment order and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds raised in Form