“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

The ACIT., Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. M/S. Woco Tech Polymere Kandla Ltd., Kandla, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, the appeal for the assessment year 2011-12 is also allowed

ITA 162/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

assessment year 2011-12, however there is one more issue involved, and that involves the question whether an issue, not raised in the draft assessment order, can at all be raised in the assessment order in the case of assessees eligible for approaching the Dispute Resolution Panel. We will take

Rajesh Somnay, Mumbai vs. ITO, International Taxation, Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The Appeal is allowed

ITA 533/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 147rSection 148Section 54

redevelopment before she passed away on 17.04.2013. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention and proposed addition of INR 88,40,429/- in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 26.03.2022, passed under Section 147 of the Act. The Appellant filed objections before DRP against the Draft 6. Assessment Order which were rejected ... hands of recipient (as contended during the reassessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer and the DRP). On perusal of the Draft Assessment Order and the order passed by 14. the DRP, we find as under: 14.1. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention that the Hardship Compensation has been offered

Shilpa Gautam, Mumbai vs. ITO, (Int Tx), Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 409/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AthwaleFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 56(2)(Vii)Section 56(2)(vii)

therefore, the Assessing Officer proposed addition of INR 55,87,200/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act by way of Draft Assessment Order, dated 31.03.2022, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act. The Appellant filed objections against the above Draft Assessment 4. Order ... Officer by invoking provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the 8. Draft Assessment Order and the Final Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer. He submitted that there was no agreement between the parties as on the date

Sis Live, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2146/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sis Live, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 4Th Floor, Statesman House Income Tax, Building, Barakhamba Road, Circle-3(1)(2), International Connaught Place, Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Abrfs4787L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9

assessee filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs.1.79 crores and brought forward business loss of Rs.30.73 crores. While framing the draft assessment orders, the Assessing Officer observed that in the assessment years under dispute, the assessee did not conduct any business operation in India. Whereas, the assessee claimed ... India. Thus, he held that the brought forward business loss has to be disallowed. In the same manner he proposed the draft assessment orders for the both assessment years in dispute. Against the draft assessment orders, the assessee raised objections before learned DRP. As regards the existence

Sis Live, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2145/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 9

Pratap Singh Yadav, Haryana vs. DCIT, Central Circle-7 Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1898/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17 Prtatap Singh Yadav, Versus Dcit, Central Circle 7, 510, Sector 31-32A, Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan: Aahpy8387M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Virendra Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 153C

broad contours of the 2019 Circular have been adverted to by us hereinabove. 14.1 Insofar as the instant case is concerned, admittedly, the draft assessment order was passed on 30.12.2018. 15. The respondent/assessee had filed its objections qua the same, which were disposed of by the Dispute Resolution Panel

ACIT, CC-14, Delhi vs. Rama Pashu Aahar Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as indicated above and

ITA 1862/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2017-18 Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., Versus Acit, Central Circle 14, C/O Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi. Extension, Part-1, New Delhi Pan: Aaccr1144B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle 14, Versus Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., New Delhi. C/O Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-1, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Rama Pashu Aahar (P) Ltd., Bulandshahr vs. ACIT, CC-14, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as indicated above and

ITA 1456/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Prashant Chandra Sadh, Mumbai vs. ITO International Tax-4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 619/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprashant Chandrasadh, Ito,(Intltax),C4(2)(1), C-1804, Oberoi Woods, Room.No.1708, बनाम/ Off Western Express Air India Building, Vs. Highway,Goregaon East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400063. Mumba-400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Biips5544N (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Soumendu Kumar Dash.DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 68

Rs.61,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.62,26,120/- and passed draft assessement order u/s 144C r.w.s147 of the Act dated 28.03.2022. The assessee aggrieved by the draft assessment order has filed objections in Form No.35A with

Chetan Lachmandas Bhatia, Mumbai vs. ITO (It)-1(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 386/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrychetan Lachmandas Ito, Bhatia, C-309, 3Rd (International बनाम/ Floor, Atul Nagar Tower, Tax)-1(2)(1), Vs. Mathwadas, Ext. Road, Mumbai. Irani Wadi No.3, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aotpb9588F (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. Chaitee Londhe, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondentby: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 17/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Om Prakash Kant- Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 13.12.2022 Passed By Ito, International Tax-1(2)(1), Mumbai ( In Short ‘ The Assessing Officer) For Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15, Pursuant To The Direction Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”) Dated 28.11.2022. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Alongwith Form No.36 Were Revised By The Assessee. The Revised Grounds Are Reproduced As Under:-

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee Londhe, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Prakash Rastogi, Sr.AR

Section 147Section 148

issued u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee offered total income of Rs.7,430/- under the head “income from other sources”. In the draft assessment order issued on 28.02.2022, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) proposed three additions; firstly, unexplained investment in purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs.3 ... Rs.25,00,000/-, which is sustained by Ld. DRP, out of the unexplained cash credit addition proposed by the AO in the draft assessment order. The relevant findings of Ld.DRP in relation to addition of Rs.25,00,000/- is reproduced as under: - 5.4.1. “We have considered the submission

Deepali Kiran Potnis, Kalyan vs. ITO. Int. Tax, Ward-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2153/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

income. 4. Since the assessee is an “eligible assessee” within the meaning of sec.144C of the Act, the assessing officer passed a “Draft assessment order” u/s 144C of the Act on 17-09-2021. The AO did not agree with the “Cost of acquisition” computed by the assessee. Accordingly ... made addition of Rs.69,11,913/-. 5. Following chronology of events are relevant for deciding the legal contention raised by the assessee. (a) Draft assessment order passed by the AO on 17-09-2021 (b) Final assessment order passed by the AO on 15.11.2021 under the impression that the assessee

Infobip Limited, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Int. Tax. 2(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 820/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavya Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 92C

will fall within the purview of FTS under Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA. 4. The assessee challenged the draft assessment order before the Ld. Dispute Resolution Penal (“DRP”) who vide its order dated 09.02.2022 confirmed the addition of Rs. 83,04,370/- rejecting the objections raised

Ubs Ag, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assesse are partly allowed

ITA 5122/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.2261 & 5122/Mum/2017 (A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14) Ubs Ag Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Level 3, 2 North Avenue Income Tax (It)-4(3)(1) Maker Maxity, Bandra Air India Building, Kurla Complex, Bandra Nariman Point East, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu5003G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Manoj Kumar

Section 234BSection 37(1)

Rs.3,71,61,100/- computed by the assesse which led to an adjustment of Rs.7,43,22,199/-. Subsequently, the A.O passed a draft assessment order making an addition of income on account of Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs.7,43,22,199/- made by the TPO. 6. The assessee filed ... DCIT (IT) -4(3)(1) the assessee had neither laid out or expended any amount while choosing to receive no/lesser securities premium. Vide draft assessment order dated 26.03.2016 the AO has disallowed the assesse’s claim of ESOP expenditure. 11. The assessee filed objection before the DRP. The DRP vide

Ubs Ag, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of assesse are partly allowed

ITA 2261/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Manoj Kumar

Section 234BSection 37(1)

Sabre Travel Network (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7380/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalvk-Vk-La- 7380@Eaqcbz@2018 ¼Fu-Oa- 2014&15½ Sabre Travel Network (India) Pvt. Ltd. Urmi Estate, 14Th Floor, 96, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (West) Mumbai-400 013 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaaca4836H Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Cc-8 (1) (2), Room No.625, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: S/Shri. Nitesh Joshi & Ruben Menezes izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

paid to travel agent and the marketing support fee received from the AE. Rather, it is the Assessing Officer who while framing the draft assessment order has made a separate addition of Rs.2 crore on the ground that the assessee should have received the amount of Rs.2 crore from

Strides Arcolab Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 15(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1903/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 35Section 92C

Shares of Strides SA Pharmaceuticals Pty.Ltd Rs. 1,14,66,873/- Total Rs.66,73,98,920/- 3. The Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order incorporating transfer pricing adjustments. The Assessing Officer further made the following disallowances:- 1. Disallowance u/s 10B Rs.11,44,12,969/- 2. Disallowance of weighted deduction ... challenging the impugned orders dated January 30, 2013, of the 17 ITA 1903/Mum/2015 M/s Strides Arcolab Limited Transfer Pricing Officer and the draft assessment order dated March 28, 2014, of the Assessing Officer, on the issue of jurisdiction. This issue has been decided in Vodafone IV and would be binding

Owens Corning (Singapore) Pvt Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Comm of Income Tax (International Tax), Circle -3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 377/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleowens Corning Inc., Dy.Cit C/O-Owens Corning (International Tax), बनाम/ (India) Pvt. Ltd., 7Th Circle-3(2)(2), Vs. Floor, Alpha Building Air India Building, Hiranandani Gardens Nariman Point, Powai, Mumbai-400076. Mumbai-400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco3242R (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sandeep Bhalla.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 10/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 22/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Passed Under Section 143(3)R.W.S144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) In Pursuance To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“Drp”) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 28.11.2022. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1.0 “Re: Treating Fabrication Charges Received As 'Fees For Technical Services': 1

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla.ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash.DR

Section 115ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

made addition of Rs.15,75,67,856/- and passed order u/s 143(3)r.w.s 144C of the Act dated 23.03.2022. Subsequently, against the draft assessment order passed by the AO, the assessee has filed objections in Form No .35A with the DRP. Whereas the DRP considered the findings

Gate Gourmet Switzerland Gmbh, Switzerland vs. DCIT Circle International Tax 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 673/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 147Section 148

Permanent Establishment (PE) Certificate. The assessee even has not filed any report in Form 3CEB. Thus, ultimately, the Assessing Officer proposed a draft assessment order determining income of Rs.3,10,35,460/- and taxed it at the rate of 40% by applying the domestic law. Against the draft assessment order ... After considering the remand report, learned DRP issued certain directions to the Assessing Officer in the matter of addition proposed in the draft assessment order. However, without carrying out the directions of learned DRP, the Assessing 3 | P a g e AY: 2014-15 Officer passed the final assessment order

Jardine Lloyd Thomposn India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6313/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO passed an order wherein an adjustment of Rs.6,70,16,931/- was proposed. The Assessing Officer passed a draft assessment order incorporating the transfer pricing adjustment. Besides, the Assessing Officer also treated the interest income as not eligible for deduction claimed under section 10AA

Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3591/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhwillis Towers Watson Vs. The Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle – 8(3), Room No. 204, (F Orm Erly K Nown As T Ower S Wat S On I Nd Ia Pv T.L Td. ) Aaykar Bhavan 2 Floor, Tower B, Unitech Mumbai – 400 093 Business Park, South City-1, Sector 4, Gurgaon -122001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg2955K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2015 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “General Ground 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 8(3), Mumbai ('Learned Ao) In Determining The Total Taxable Income Of The Appellant For The Subject Ay At Rs.7,04,44,370 Instead Of The Amount Of Rs.1,14,98,477 As Reported Under Section 115Jb Of The Act, In The Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant. 2. Erred In Accepting The Contentions Of The Learned Ao Of Making A Reference Of The Appellant'S Case To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ii(8), Mumbai (Learned Tpo) Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act, Without Satisfying The Conditions Specified Therein

For Appellant: Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar

Section 115JSection 92CSection 92C(4)

Validity of Assessment order 22. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in passing a draft assessment order in the case of the Appellant in lieu of the final assessment order given that the Appellant does not fall within the definition ... order of the ITAT is barred by limitation, therefore, the assessee does not become eligible assesse u/s 144C of the Act, therefore, the draft assessment order dated 20.03.2013 and the final assessment order passed by the AO on 26.04.2013 were barred by limitation. 7. The ld. Counsel vide detailed submission