“ draft assessment order ”

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Subodh Agarwal

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.

149 Taxmann.com 373 · 2023 · High Court

194

Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP

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.

369 ITR 113 · 2014 · High Court

140

ESPN Star Sports Mauritius S.N.C. ET Compagnie v. Union of India

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.

388 ITR 383 · 2016 · High Court

398 ITR 189 · 2017 · High Court

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

127 Taxmann.com 637 · High Court

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

Hire Purchase (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC

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.

128 Taxmann.com 190 · High Court

Chandrakant Dharia v. ITO

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.

469 ITR 262 · Reported

ITA 702/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

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

Avaya India Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nageshwar Rao; &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Verma

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)

adjustment of Rs. 43,01,79,268, determining the taxable income at Rs 139,49,95,600/-. The assessee filed objections against the draft assessment order before the DRP. The DRP passed order u/s 144 C(5) of the Act on 14/02/2022 in accordance with the directions

Karcher Cleaning Systems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT Spl. Range-5, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposed

ITA 4986/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Mrinal Kumar Das

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)

Cost 564972392 Assessee’s Actual Cost 612177147 Proposed Adjustment 4,72,04,755 6. The assessee has submitted the reply to the draft assessment order stating that the assessee wishes to exercise the option file appeal with Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and not to file any objection before Dispute

Ashok Kumar, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, in terms of our observations

ITA 296/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: Ita296/Rpr/2023 (Assessment Years: 2017-18) Ashok Kumar, V Income Tax Officer- Ward 4(1), B-11, Pink City, Gayatri Nagar, S Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, 492007 (C.G.) Near Akashwani, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Bgnpk9988H (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Prafulla Pendse, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13-10-2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18-10- 2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 194CSection 249Section 250Section 69

assessee as contractual receipt u/s 194C, which in absence of any explanation by the assessee are treated as income escaped assessment. A draft assessment order indicating proposed addition in respect of the above issues was served on the assessee with a show cause notice dated 16/02/2022, with a request ... Assessee has not made any reply to the proposed addition, which was considered as that the assessee has nothing to say. Finally, the draft assessment order was passed as final assessment order with total addition of Rs. 1,77,21,630/-. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order

Shree Sita Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 217/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 217/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shree Sita Pulses Private Limited Sita Group, Behind District Court, Millpara, Durg (C.G.) Pan : Aascs8895E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

premium of Rs.48,75,920/- received as a share premium was without any basis. Accordingly, the A.O., based on his aforesaid deliberations, vide draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act proposed an addition of Rs.48,75,920/- u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 6. The A.O. forwarded ... aforesaid draft assessment order a/w. final “Show Cause Notice” (SCN) dated 06.04.2021 to the assessee company. Although the assessee company tried to substantiate its claim as regards the valuation of the land admeasuring 1.82 hectares as was so projected by it but the same did not find favor with

Defsys Solutions P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1818/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 156Section 271ASection 274

penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB (1A) (b) r.w.s section 274 of the Act were also initiated therein. 2.1 The so-called draft assessment order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the Ld. AO is in contravention of the provisions of section 144C (1) of the Act, and therefore, the subsequent order passed ... assessee vehemently stated that the assessment order so framed by the Assessing Officer, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be called as “draft assessment order” and, is therefore, in violation of provisions of section 144C of the Act. 7. Strong reliance was placed on the decision

Haier Appliances India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, It & Tp Delhi 2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 417/DEL/2022[2017-148]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2017-148

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 92BSection 92F

electronically filed on 30.11.2017 declaring an income of Rs. 43,97,33,630/-. 5. TP adjustment was completed vide order dated 28.01.2021. Draft assessment order was framed on 31.03.2021. The DRP disposed the objections of the assessee vide letter dated 26.11.2021. The order giving effect to the directions is dated ... Assessment Unit that the DRP order is not yet received and in the same case history, the JAO has also mentioned that the draft assessment order was prepared u/s 144C(13) of the Act on the basis of order giving effect of DRP order by the TPO and DRP order

Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 194/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 194/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ib, Corporate House, Indamara, Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aacca2881J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Bikram Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Dated 28.03.2023 For A.Y.2018-19. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax—Raipur-1 Has Erred In Holding The Assessment Order Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre (Neac) On 01.03.2021 As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue As The Order Was Passed Without Making Any Enquiry On The Issues Of Applicability Of Section 14A Of The I. T. Act, 1961. The Assessment Order Passed By The Neac Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Therefore The Order U/S 263 Passed By The Ld. Cit Is Unjustified, Unwarranted & Uncalled. 2. The Assessee Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 801ASection 80I

requisition(s) 11 for information/document may be issued subsequently. Such a mention by the A.O was found to be correct as per draft assessment order wherein it is stated that notice u/s.142(1) a/w. questionnaire was issued and served on the assessee on 13.01.2021 and 22.01.2021 through system

Ups Express Private Limited (Formerly Known As Ups Jetair Express Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT 3(1) (1) Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/ITO/NFAC-Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Ups Express Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Ups Jetair Dcit-3(1)(1) Express Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 6-A, Shyam Off Jvlr, Majas Vs. Mumbai-400020 Village, Jogeshwari(E) Mumbai-400060 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu4322N Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By : Shri Dhiraj Kumar Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Dhiraj Kumar

Section 131

deducted at source of ₹ 49,985/–. As this issue was not before the learned assessing officer at the time of passing of the draft assessment order, we restore this issue back to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to reconcile form number 26AS

Sujata Banerjee, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 517/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 . Ms. Sujata Banerjee, Vs. Acit, C/O- N. Mehta & Co. (Pao Circle-1(1)(2), Holder), Cas, Unit-9, Level-3, International Taxation, Radha Chs Ltd., Telli Park New Delhi Road, Andheri East, Mumbai Pan :Byopb3681F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147

from available funds. The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the explanation of the assessee and proceeded to frame the draft assessment order by treating the amount of Rs.2,92,86,700/- as unexplained income and added to the income of the assessee. Challenging the draft assessment order, the assessee ... regard are hereby, disposed off accordingly.” 4. However, in the final assessment order, the Assessing Officer again repeated the addition made in the draft assessment order. 5. We have heard Sh. Porus Kaka, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee and Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, learned Departmental Representative

M/S. Baragarh Rice Millers Consortium Pvt. Ltd, Govindpur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 230/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, ld

Section 132Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153D

apply to Section 153D of the Act. There are three or four requirements that are mandated therein, (i) the AO should submit the draft assessment order “well in time”. Here it was submitted just two days prior to the deadline thereby putting the approving authority under great pressure

Teradata India Pvt Ltd, Grugram vs. DCIT Circle-3(1), Gurugram

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 2337/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Transfer Pricing Officer - 1(3)(2). New Delhi (the Learned TPO"), the draft assessment order and the final assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi ("Learned AO") pursuant to the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel 1, New Delhi ... order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Transfer Pricing Officer - 1(3)(2). New Delhi ("the Learned TPO"), the draft assessment order and the final assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi ("Leamed AO") pursuant to the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel 1, New Delhi

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Ruchi Garg, Delhi

In the result, cross objection no

ITA 1440/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Girish Agrawal

ITA 1438/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

turn, has again noted that the ‘technical approval’ has been accorded to pass assessment orders in 18 cases including assessee, for which draft assessment orders were submitted by the Assessing Officer Noida. b) The JCIT in his approval memo for all 18 cases also directed the AO to ensure taking ... taking into consideration the above points, a copy of the final orders passed be sent to the JCIT. d) As many as 18 draft assessment orders including the assessment order of the assessee herein were combinedly placed before the JCIT in one go seeking statutory approval under Section 153D

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Ruchi Garg, Delhi

In the result, cross objection no

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Girish Agrawal

ITA 1437/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Ruchi Garg, Delhi

In the result, cross objection no

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Girish Agrawal

ITA 1436/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

DCIT Central Circle-2, Delhi vs. Ruchi Garg, Delhi

In the result, cross objection no

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Girish Agrawal