← 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

Measage G. H Agro Products Private Limited, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 22/ASR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250(6)

leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to "each assessment year" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment orders under section 153A. 19. In the instant case, the draft assessment orders in 123 cases, i.e. for 123 assessment ... other connected group cases, the assessment was carried out under S. 153A/ 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing officer has forwarded the draft assessment orders for 7 years ( AY 2003-04 to AY 2009-10) for endorsement and approval of the superior authority

Measage G.H Agro Private Limited, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 21/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250(6)

leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to "each assessment year" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment orders under section 153A. 19. In the instant case, the draft assessment orders in 123 cases, i.e. for 123 assessment ... other connected group cases, the assessment was carried out under S. 153A/ 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing officer has forwarded the draft assessment orders for 7 years ( AY 2003-04 to AY 2009-10) for endorsement and approval of the superior authority

Measage.G H Agro Products Private Limited, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 20/ASR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250(6)

leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to "each assessment year" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment orders under section 153A. 19. In the instant case, the draft assessment orders in 123 cases, i.e. for 123 assessment ... other connected group cases, the assessment was carried out under S. 153A/ 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing officer has forwarded the draft assessment orders for 7 years ( AY 2003-04 to AY 2009-10) for endorsement and approval of the superior authority

Measage G H Agro Products Private Limited, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 19/ASR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250(6)

leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to "each assessment year" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment orders under section 153A. 19. In the instant case, the draft assessment orders in 123 cases, i.e. for 123 assessment ... other connected group cases, the assessment was carried out under S. 153A/ 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing officer has forwarded the draft assessment orders for 7 years ( AY 2003-04 to AY 2009-10) for endorsement and approval of the superior authority

Measeg G.H Agro Products Private Limited, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 18/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250(6)

leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to "each assessment year" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment orders under section 153A. 19. In the instant case, the draft assessment orders in 123 cases, i.e. for 123 assessment ... other connected group cases, the assessment was carried out under S. 153A/ 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing officer has forwarded the draft assessment orders for 7 years ( AY 2003-04 to AY 2009-10) for endorsement and approval of the superior authority

Measage G.H Agro Products Private Limited, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 17/ASR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250(6)

leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to "each assessment year" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment orders under section 153A. 19. In the instant case, the draft assessment orders in 123 cases, i.e. for 123 assessment ... other connected group cases, the assessment was carried out under S. 153A/ 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing officer has forwarded the draft assessment orders for 7 years ( AY 2003-04 to AY 2009-10) for endorsement and approval of the superior authority

Measage Sat Kartar Solvex Private Limited, Ferozepur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 16/ASR/2020[2001-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2001-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250(6)

leave no room for doubt that approval with respect to "each assessment year" is to be obtained by the Assessing Officer on the draft assessment order before passing the assessment orders under section 153A. 19. In the instant case, the draft assessment orders in 123 cases, i.e. for 123 assessment ... other connected group cases, the assessment was carried out under S. 153A/ 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing officer has forwarded the draft assessment orders for 7 years ( AY 2003-04 to AY 2009-10) for endorsement and approval of the superior authority

Tpg Growth II Makets Pte Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 4 raised by the Appellant is partly allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Dinesh BafnaFor Respondent: Dr. Samuel Pitta
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 5Section 9Section 92C(3)

However, prior to the passing of the Rectification Order, dated 06/08/2021, by the TPO, the Assessing Officer passed the Draft Assessment Order, dated 15/06/2021, under Section 144C of the Act at the proposed assessed income of INR 115,07,88,560/- and therefore, transfer pricing adjustment as revised ... could not be incorporated in the Draft Assessment Order. 6. Aggrieved by the adjustment made in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 15/06/2021, the Assessee filed Objections before the DRP on 31/08/2021. The DRP vide order dated 31/03/2022 partly allowed the aforesaid Objections. Pursuant to the directions given

Baker Hughes Energy Technologies Uk Limited, United Kingdom vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 521/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2023AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 448Section 44B

work was restricted to manufacture and supply of the equipment. (See page 433, and 441 of Paperbook along with page 7 of the draft assessment order) Even the consideration payable to the assessee was clearly identifiable at 31.28% of the total contract value (See page 442 of Paper book

Hubergroup India Private Limited, Vapi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 133/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.133/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Plot No.808/E, Phase-Ii, Income Tax, Valsad, Room Vs Gidc, Vapi-396195 No.301, 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Pan No. Aaach 7063 F Office, Palak Arcade, Pali Hill, Santi Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

unit of Boiler divisions are primarily meant for production of ink. The assessing officer proposed disallowance of deduction under section 80IA in the draft assessment order in his show cause notice. In response to show cause notice on the proposed additions in the draft 4 Hubergroup India Pvt. Ltd. assessment

Late Sh. Shekhar Dhariwal Through L/H Smt. Nikita Dhariwal, Dhariwal Bhawan, Shastri Market, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kota

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 51/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148

carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the ld. A/R of the assessee submitted that all the notices as well as draft assessment order were sent at the e-mail id of assessee. The same could not be responded as the assessee expired on 02.02.2018. Thus, initiation

Lintas India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2018/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

determination of arm’s length price (ALP) of the international transaction. The TPO made TP adjustment of Rs.13,15,77,403/-. A draft assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer incorporating the TP adjustments. Besides the above, the Assessing Officer also made an addition of Rs.4

DCIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors P Ltd., As Representative Assessee of M/S. Mausmi Ventures Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.88/मुं/ 2023 से 90/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12 से 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 148Section 163Section 163(1)

said notice was received by the respondent on 24/12/2018. The Assessing Officer without passing the order u/s. 163 of the Act passed the draft assessment order u/s. 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act in the name of KRPL as representative assessee of MVL. Subsequent thereto, the Assessing Officer ... treat KRPL as representative assessee of MVL for the A.Ys 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 28/12/2018 Draft assessment order passed by the A.O in the name of KRPL as representative assessee of MVL. 08/02/2019 Final assessment order passed by A.O in the name of KRPL as representative assessee

DCIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors P Ltd., As Representative Assessee of M/S. Mausmi Ventures Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 89/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.88/मुं/ 2023 से 90/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12 से 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 148Section 163Section 163(1)

said notice was received by the respondent on 24/12/2018. The Assessing Officer without passing the order u/s. 163 of the Act passed the draft assessment order u/s. 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act in the name of KRPL as representative assessee of MVL. Subsequent thereto, the Assessing Officer ... treat KRPL as representative assessee of MVL for the A.Ys 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 28/12/2018 Draft assessment order passed by the A.O in the name of KRPL as representative assessee of MVL. 08/02/2019 Final assessment order passed by A.O in the name of KRPL as representative assessee

DCIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors P Ltd As Representative Assessee of M/S. Mausmi Ventures Ltd.), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 88/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.88/मुं/ 2023 से 90/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12 से 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 148Section 163Section 163(1)

said notice was received by the respondent on 24/12/2018. The Assessing Officer without passing the order u/s. 163 of the Act passed the draft assessment order u/s. 144C(1) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act in the name of KRPL as representative assessee of MVL. Subsequent thereto, the Assessing Officer ... treat KRPL as representative assessee of MVL for the A.Ys 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 28/12/2018 Draft assessment order passed by the A.O in the name of KRPL as representative assessee of MVL. 08/02/2019 Final assessment order passed by A.O in the name of KRPL as representative assessee

DCIT -5(2) (1), Mumbai vs. Kec International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 3.1 & 3.2 raised by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 33/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Shekhar
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)

draft order in contrary to and without complying with the provisions of section 144B of the Act. 1.2. The Appellant prays that the draft assessment order be held as bad in law and consequently, the assessment proceedings and the final assessment order be quashed. 2. Transfer pricing addition on corporate ... vide order, dated 28/01/2021. The Assessing Officer incorporated the aforesaid transfer pricing 44. adjustment of INR 13,40,33,405/- in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 31/03/2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act. Against the Draft Assessment Order, the Assessee filed objections 45. which

Transporter Industry Internatinal Gmbh, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT International Taxation, Circle-4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1240/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1240/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) Transporter Industry बिधम/ Dcit, Int Tax Circle- International Gmbh. 4(1)(2) Vs. Kalisrabe 57, 74076 Air India Building, Heilbronn, Germany, Pin- Nariman Point, Mumbai- 999999. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafct0013Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nikil Tiwari Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ao/Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2), Mumbai R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 25.04.2021 Pursuant To The Direction Of The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Dated 18.03.2021. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature, So Dismissed. 3. Ground No. 3 Is A Legal Issue Which Has Been Raised By The Assessee Challenging The Action Of The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo) To Have Passed The Transfer Pricing (Tp) Order, After The Due Date Prescribed In Section 92(3A) R.W.S 153 Of The Act. Therefore, The Assessee Is Challenging The Action Of The Tpo In Passing Transfer Pricing Order After Limitation Period By Citing The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Madras High Court (Db) In The Case Of M/S. Saint Gobain

For Appellant: Shri Nikil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. AR)
Section 153Section 3Section 92Section 92C

claimed by the applicant as reimbursement for registration expenses of patents and trademarks. In para 6 of the Draft Assessment Order the Ld. AO had mentioned that the assessee company had received Rs. 34,61,520 from TII India Pvt Ltd. as registration expenses for patent and trademarks. During ... case laws cited by the applicant have we have no reason to interfere with the findings given by the AO in the draft assessment order on the objection raised by the applicant." 18. Assailing the action of Ld. DRP, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. DRP has not duly

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 1 (3)92), Mumbai

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

ITA 7807/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), A Wing, 11Th Floor, Marathon Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lower Parel (East), Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4050 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

115A of the Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer i 115A of the Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer in the draft assessment n the draft assessment order proposed this transfer pricing adjustment for addition. The order proposed this transfer pricing adjustment for addition. The order proposed this transfer pricing adjustment ... disallowance of employee’s share option scheme expenses share option scheme expenses etc. The assessee preferred etc. The assessee preferred objections against the draft assessment order before the Ld. DRP. objections against the draft assessment order before the Ld. DRP. objections against the draft assessment order before

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 1924/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Percy J PardiwallaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

interest received by the Appellant on loan advanced by the Appellant to its AE. The above transfer pricing adjustments were incorporated in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 28.03.2013. In the Draft Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer also proposed 6. disallowance of INR 172,94,09,811/- out of aggregate deduction ... deduction claimed by the Appellant under Section 10A of the Act. The Appellant filed objections against the Draft Assessment Order, 8. dated 28.03.2013, before DRP. The DRP rejected the objections raised by the Appellant challenging Transfer Pricing Adjustment of INR 2,72,430/-. DRP also concluded that Assessing Officer

Urvashi Narain, Usa vs. ITO, Ward Int. Taxation 2(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1889/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)

vide order dated 15.09.2021 determining the total income at Rs.6,31,98,895. Immediately thereafter, on 3 30.09.2021, the Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order purportedly under Section 144C(1) of the Act determining the total income at the very same figure of Rs.6,31,98,875. Against ... draft assessment order, the assessee raised objections before learned Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), inter alia, challenging the validity of the draft assessment order. 5. After considering the submissions of the assessee in the context of facts and material on record, learned DRP upheld assessee’s objection challenging the validity