← 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

Western Up Tollway Limited, Noida vs. ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 493/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Western Up Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacw6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Western Up Tollway Ltd (2) & Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“The Page 1 Of 38

For Appellant: Advocates Ajay Vohra & AnanyaFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT (DR)
Section 270ASection 92CSection 92C(3)

There is also no dispute about the facts that the final assessment order was passed by the Ld. AO on 12.01.2022, the draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act was passed on 31.03.2021, and the directions of Ld. DRP under section 144C ... issued the notices. If the contention of the appellants / revenue was to hold some water, they must have passed the draft assessment order immediately on receipt of the order from the Tribunal, but instead, notice was issued by the DRP. In any case

Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 170/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp Nos.67/Hyd/2022 & 493/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) M/S Western Up Tollway Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, New Delhi Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Pan:Aaacw6002B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita Tp No. 170/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahua Bharatpur Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Expressways Ltd, Income Tax, Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaecm4426F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocates Ajay Vohra & Ananya Kapoor राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These Three Appeals Are Filed By M/S. Western Up Tollway Ltd (2) & Mahua Bharatpur Expressways Ltd (1) (“The Page 1 Of 38

For Appellant: Advocates Ajay Vohra & AnanyaFor Respondent: : Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT (DR)
Section 270ASection 92CSection 92C(3)

There is also no dispute about the facts that the final assessment order was passed by the Ld. AO on 12.01.2022, the draft assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144C(1) of the Act was passed on 31.03.2021, and the directions of Ld. DRP under section 144C ... issued the notices. If the contention of the appellants / revenue was to hold some water, they must have passed the draft assessment order immediately on receipt of the order from the Tribunal, but instead, notice was issued by the DRP. In any case

Ranjeet Kumar Yadav, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-6(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2215/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2214 & 2215/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Ranjeet Kumar Yadav, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 87/5, Gnt Road, Balaji Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 6(1), Padiyanallur, Chennai 600 052. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Atjpr9158E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Dated 28.12.2023 23.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

were issued to the assessee on 15.11.2021 and 27.01.2022. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice in the form of the draft assessment order proposing addition of 3 I.T.A. Nos.2214 & 2215/Chny/25 ₹.2,43,50,958/- and in response to the show cause notice, the assessee did not furnish any submission ... dated 15.11.2021 & 27.01.2022 and moreover, there was no compliance against the show-cause notice issued in the form of draft assessment order proposing addition of ₹.2,43,50,958/-. Taking into consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice

Ranjeet Kumar Yadav, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-6(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2214/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2214 & 2215/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Ranjeet Kumar Yadav, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 87/5, Gnt Road, Balaji Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 6(1), Padiyanallur, Chennai 600 052. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Atjpr9158E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Babitha, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Dated 28.12.2023 23.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

were issued to the assessee on 15.11.2021 and 27.01.2022. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice in the form of the draft assessment order proposing addition of 3 I.T.A. Nos.2214 & 2215/Chny/25 ₹.2,43,50,958/- and in response to the show cause notice, the assessee did not furnish any submission ... dated 15.11.2021 & 27.01.2022 and moreover, there was no compliance against the show-cause notice issued in the form of draft assessment order proposing addition of ₹.2,43,50,958/-. Taking into consideration of the submissions of the ld. AR and the ld. DR and in the interest of justice