“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

Globe Teleservices Limited, Hong Kong vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation), Circle-2(1), Bangalore

ITA 348/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(It)A Nos. 348 & 349/Bang/2024

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 191Section 201Section 9(1)(vi)

received by assessee from the Indian company as royalty u/s. 9(1)(vi) of the act r.w.Explanation 2 and 6. 4.3 Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed the objections before the DRP. The DRP upheld the view of the Ld.AO by relying on the decision

Toyoda Gosei Company, Japan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle 2(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1092/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90

thus proposed to make addition in the hands of the assessee amounting to Rs.2,73,78,299/- as FTS. On receipt of the draft assessment order, assessee preferred objections before the DRP. Before the DRP, assessee had submitted additional evidence in support of its claim of reimbursement of other expenses ... noted that they were held to be technical in nature. The DRP thus upheld the view taken by the Ld.AO in the draft assessment order. On receipt of the draft assessment order, the Ld.AO passed the final assessment order by making addition in the hands of the assessee. Page

Aadesh Commodities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai Suburban vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 4035/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy.Saadesh Commodities Pvt Ltd Vs National Faceless Assessment 401, Satyam Tower, 90 Feet Centre, Delhi Road, Asha Nagar, Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400 101 Pan : Aahca3726H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jay BhansaliFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 250Section 68

hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 28.09.2020 passed prior to disposal of objections vide order dated 20.09.2021; b. the draft assessment order dated 26.09.2021 and the assessment order under section 147 rws144B of the Act dated 30.09.2021 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned assessment order") passed prior

Veena Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-25, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 295/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 294/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2016-17) & Ita No. 295/Del/2022, (A.Y. 2017-18) Veena Singh Vs. Acit Flat 5, 2Nd Floor, J-21, Central Circle-25 South Extension Part-1, Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Delhi Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, Pan: Axjps9588H Delhi

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 44ASection 68Section 69A

ACIT/CC-25/2018-19/ dated 27.12. 2018 on the above subject 2. Approval is hereby accorded- u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the draft assessment orders as amended In the following, .cases, on the basis of the detailed discussion with you time-to time, information available on-record, facts mentioned ... letter F No. ACIT/CC-25/2018- 19 dated 21.12.2018 of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, but there is no reference regarding the draft assessment order being sent for approval of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. (iii) The letter requesting accord of approval u/s 153D

Veena Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle25, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 294/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 44ASection 68Section 69A

Tech Data (Singapore) Pte Limited (Formerly Known As "Technology Solutions (Singapore) Pte Limited), Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed

ITA 3280/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 274

periodically upgrades, rendering services like consultancy, training, maintenance, renting of the software or subscription for software was a different situation. Therefore, in the draft assessment order passed u/s 144C(1) of the Act on 29.09.2022 the total receipt shown by the assessee under the sale of software/hardware amounting to Rs.58 ... Article 12 of the India-Singapore DTAA taxable at 10% of the rate prescribed in the DTAA. 5. Against the draft assessment order the assessee filed objection before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). However, the DRP vide direction issued u/s 144C(5) of the Act dated 28.06.2023 has rejected

Sasha Association for Craft Producers, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Exempt, Kolkata

ITA 980/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Income declared as per ITR

Section 11Section 11(6)Section 143(2)Section 250

notices, assessee filed its submission before the AO. After perusing all the submissions of the assessee a show cause notice as a draft assessment order dated I.T.A. No.: 980/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sasha Association for Craft Producers. 03.03.2021 issued upon the assessee. The case of the assessee was fixed ... hearing on 07.03.2021. However, the assessee has failed to file its response/objection against the draft assessment order passed by the AO. Therefore, ld. AO passed the final assessment order as per the draft assessment order framed as earlier by making following addition in the case of assessee: Income declared

Prashant Chelani, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

ITA 213/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (V.H.)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

proposing the above mentioned addition. The assessee filed his responses thereto. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer concluded the assessment, as per the draft assessment order which was sent to the assessee as show cause notice dated 30.04.2021. As regards penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, it may also

Indira Pasupuleti, Palakollu vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Kakinada

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

ITA 8/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.08/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Indira Pasupuleti, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Palakollu. International Taxation, Pan: Gfjpp 5413 L Kakinada. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

Income U/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) Rs. 15,50,000/- + interest income Rs. 9,027/-]. Accordingly, the Ld. AO passed the draft assessment order U/s. 144C(1) of the Act. On being aggrieved, against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections U/s. 144C(3) of the Act before ... passed the final assessment 4 order U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act on 30/11/2023 and sustained the addition made in the draft assessment order as directed by the Ld. DRP. Aggrieved by the said order of the Ld. AO, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising

Instrumentation Laboratory India Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 10(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2051/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Instrumentation Laboratory Vs. Dcit India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 10(2) 1471-1476, 14Th Floor, New Delhi Aggarwal Millennium Tower- 2, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi Pan: Aabci6557N Appellant Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 234BSection 234CSection 271

Addl. CIT, Range-1, Bhubaneswar reads as under: "Despite a reminder given on 19th March, 2015 to submit the time barring draft assessment orders for approval u/s. 153D on or beforej23i03.2015, the draft orders in M/s. Neelachal Carbo Metalicks Pvt. Ltd. Group of cases has been received in this office

Saab Technologies B.V.(Formerly Known S, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., International Taxation, Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, ITA No. 153/KOL/2022 is allowed

ITA 153/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Anikesh Banerjee & Sri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 144C

Ground 2: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in placing reliance on the draft assessment order of the preceding assessment year i.e. AY 2017-18 and holding that since an Installation Permanent Establishment (‘PE’) was constituted in appellant’s case ... Computation of Total Income and tax thereon: Subject to the above, the total income of the assessee is computed in the draft assessment order as below: Name of the Project/ site Total receipts Attribution of income @10% AAI-5 Project 36,83.873 3.68,387 AAI (Delhi Phase-1) Project5

Kalyanasundaram Bharath Hari, Chittlapakkam, Chennai vs. ITO, Int. Tax Ward 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 307/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 50CSection 54

income to the extent of Rs.29,20,000/-. Accordingly, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued and assessment was reopened. The AO passed draft assessment order u/s.144C r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 21.03.2022 wherein, he noted that the assessee should have admitted the value as per guideline value provided ... Hence, accordingly he added additional income on account of capital gains u/s.50C of the Act to the extent of Rs.29.20 lakhs. Aggrieved against draft assessment order, assessee moved to Dispute Resolution Panel. The assessee raised objection before DRP for issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act and DRP vide order

Mahinder Chawla, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle Int. Tax- 1(2)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 473/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2020-21 Mahinder Chawla, Vs Acit, H-80, South Extension, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi – 110 049. New Delhi. Pan: Acdpc9480B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : .04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.01.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-42, (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit(A), Delhi-42/10596/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Acit, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. Heard & Perused The Records.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 55

comes up that assessee was show caused on 2nd March 2022 and assessee claims to have replied on 22nd April 2022 but the draft assessment order was already passed on 23rd March 2022. Therefore the evidence as filed by reply dated 22nd April 2022 could not have been taken note

Sridhar Sundaram, Tamil Nadu vs. Income Tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 256/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 142(1)

assessment order passed by the AO on 30.11.2021 by passing a corrigendum on the order dated 28.9.2021 treating it as a draft assessment order. This additional ground was not taken before the FAA. 7. The Id.AR reiterated the submission made before the lower authorities and submitted that the notices were

Balusa Venkata Muralikrishna, Bangalore vs. The Incometax Offcier, Intl Taxn, Ward1(2), Bangalore, Koramangala

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

ITA 252/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 45Section 54F

rejected the claim of exemption and added back the returned income under the head “capital gain” u/s 45 of the Act. A draft assessment order was passed on 28.8.2023 against which the assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”), Bangalore and the ld. DRP after getting the remand

ACIT Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M B Patil Construction Limited, Mumbai

ITA 98/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40Section 44A

shall not be void - hence in present case since both the names were mentioned it cannot be regarded as a jurisdictional defect; (f) Draft assessment order and the final assessment order referred to both the names; (g) In case of Spice, doctrine of merger with the judgment of SC shall

M/S M.B.Patil Constructions Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 303/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40Section 44A

Saxo Bank A/S, Noida vs. ACIT Intl. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2010/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 195

grossly negligent in concluding that the documents shared via submission dated 03.04.2023 were already available with the Ld. AO while passing draft assessment order for the captioned year. 5. The Ld. AO has erred in facts and in law by not recording any observation regarding the examination of relevant facts

Akunuri Sai Avinash, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 42/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon‟Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon‟Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.42/Viz/2023 (धनधाारणिर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2016-17) Akunuri Sai Avinash, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Rep. By Gpa Holder Dr. Akunuri Income Tax, Sai Babu, Circle (International Taxation), Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: (अपीलाथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्याथीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26/03/2024 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of : 12/04/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 50C

case U/s. 147 of the Act and notice U/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on 29/03/2021. The Ld. AO thereafter passed a draft assessment order U/s. 144C of the Act to tax Rs.49,04,000/- under the head „capital gains‟ during the AY 2016-17. Being aggrieved ... draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objections before the Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP directed the Ld. AO to get the property valued by the Valuation Officer of Income Tax Department. The Ld. DVO valued 3 the property at Rs. 33,49,000/- as on 11/5/2015 vide his File

Edenred Pte Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT It 2 (2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopaledenred Pte. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O, Walker Chandiok & Income-Tax, International Co. Llp, 11Th Floor, Tower Taxation-2(2)(1) Ii, One International Room No.1722,17Th Floor, Center, S.B. Marg, Air India Building, Prabhadevi (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai – 400013 Maharashtra – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aacce8636P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Jitendra Singh Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.04.2024

For Appellant: Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Anil Sant

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

Income on income-tax refund 2,07,010 Total Income 4,98,58,610 The assessing officer passed draft assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act on 06.09.2022 treating the aforesaid receipt on account of infrastructure data centre charges, other service charges, management service fees ... direction issued by the ld. DRP and total income was assessed at Rs.4,98,58,610/- after making the additions proposed in the draft assessment order as referred above. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the ITAT. Further facts are discussed while adjudicating different grounds of appeal filed