“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

M/S. Ntt Data Global Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 5, Bangalore

ITA 2533/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Chavali NarayanFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K. J

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Interest On 7,28,17,800 NIL 7,28,17,800 Delayed Receivables Total 131,09,67,756 3.9. The Assessing Officer passed Draft Assessment Order, dated 04/12/2018, incorporating the proposed TP addition of INR.1.310,967,756/-. Further, the Assessing Officer also proposed following additions (a) addition of INR.364 ... alleged value addition computed at the rate of 5% on reimbursement aggregating to INR.272,085,280/- receivable from group companies. Thus, in the Draft Assessment Order, dated 04/12/2018 the Assessing Officer proposed as under: Particulars Amount (in INR.) Total Returned Income as per revised

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3555/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

identical facts and circumstances had deleted the addition in respect of excess mining profits proposed by the ld. AO in the draft assessment order. 5.1. He also placed reliance on the decision in assesse’s own case for AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 wherein addition on this issue

Tata Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3294/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

Franklin Templeton International Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1495/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

section 92CA of the Act for the year under consideration; 2. The Ld. AO erred in a passing 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 of "eligible assessee" as per Section ... respect of data processing and software services be deleted. 4. Upon receipt of the order passed under section 92CA(3), the Ld.AO passed draft assessment order by making disallowance under section 14A of the act at Rs.3,17,449/-, disallowance of repairs and maintenance expenses of Rs.29

Franklin Templeton International Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2047/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 92D

section 92CA of the Act for the year under consideration; 2. The Ld. AO erred in a passing 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 of "eligible assessee" as per Section ... section 92CA of the Act for the year under consideration; 2. The Ld. AO erred in passing a draft assessment order in the case of the Appellant in lieu of the final assessment order given that the 9 ITA No.2047/Mum/2014 & ITA No.1495/Mum/2015 Franklin Templeton International Services (India) P. Ltd. Appellant

Mohammad Rafiq Warsi, Pipariya vs. Income Tax Officer-2, Itarsi

ITA 383/IND/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

violation of the principles of natural justice. It therefore deserves to be set aside. It was contended by the Ld. AR that only draft assessment order was on the Income Tax portal. The assessee is a black smith & is residing in a joint family set up. The assessee

DCIT-13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3995/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal, () Ι.Τ.Α. No. 3432/Mum/2019

Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Oracle Financial Services Software Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-13(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3432/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal, () Ι.Τ.Α. No. 3432/Mum/2019

Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Kanahiya Lal Politechnic, Roorkee vs. ITO, W-1(3)(2), Haridwar

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

ITA 86/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2016-17] Kanahiya Lal Polytechnic Vs Nfac, Delhi/ Dehradun Road, Roorkee Ito, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Uttarakhand-247667 Lines, Roorkee, Pan-Aabak4938M Uttarakhand--247667 Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Tilak Raj, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2015-16/110417665 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 22.03.2023, On The Basis Of Information Available With The Department That Assessee Has Deposited Cash Of Inr 1,39,81,145/- In Union Bank Of India During The Financial Year 2015-16. The Assessee Society Has Not Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. Thereafter, Statutory Notices Were Issued From Time To Time To Provide The Assessee An Opportunity To Substantiate Its Claim By Submission Of Documentary Evidences. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Despite Of Many Opportunities, Assessee Failed To File Any Reply Or Documentary Evidence To Substantiate Its Claim. In Absence Of Information & Documentary Evidence Filed By The Assessee, The Ao Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Inr 1,86,27,053/- Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act.

Section 10Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

learned appellate authority as well as the AO did not go through the statutory provisions under sec 144B/ 144C as regards issue of draft assessment order. In absence of draft assessment order, the assessment will be null and void. 8. That proceedings and assessment had to be done

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun vs. Seabird Exploration Fz-Llc, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 134/DDN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun18 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

which is pending as on date. 3. In the meantime, the assessment for the year under appeal was taken up for scrutiny and draft assessment order was passed wherein AO has proposed the addition of INR 16,87,46,765/- being 10% of the gross revenue and further proposed addition

Teejay India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Visakhapatnam

ITA 533/VIZ/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

Thereafter, the A.O vide his order passed under section 144C(1) of the Act, dated 08.12.2023 passed a draft assessment order wherein he determined the income of the assessee-company under the normal provisions at Rs.42,64,55,272/- after making certain additions/disallowances, viz. (i) Transfer pricing adjustment

Indian Clearing Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Addissional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 6381/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Indian Clearing Corporation Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, 25Th Floor, P.J. Tower, Vs. Circle-1(2)(1), Dalal Street, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400001. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aabci7140K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Niraj Sheth A/W. Ms. Niyati Parikh For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 72

which was disallowed by the AO. It was submitted that the assessee was issued a show cause dt. 02-09-2021 alongwith draft assessment order and the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the assessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment order

Singh Transport Company, Karhal Road Mainpuri vs. ITO Mainpuri, Kachehari Road Mainpuri

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

ITA 560/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Singh Transport Company Vs. Ito, C/O Ram Prakash Singh Transport Wared 4(2)(5), Petrol Pump, Karhal Road Near Mainpuri Karhal Chauraha Manipuri, Uttar Pradesh Pan : Abqfs1198C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajeev Kumar Kulshreshta, Adv. Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order

Section 143(1)Section 69A

dated 11-04-55, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to collect the correct tax. 5. That non-passing of the draft assessment order is unconstitutional and thereof, the case copy is required to be sent. 6. That it is not in the interest of justice to accept

Johnson Praveen Quadros, Australia vs. Income Tax Officer, Intl Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5778/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Johnson Praveen Quadros Income Tax Officer, Intl Tax Australia Ward 3 (3)(1) C/0 Room No.626, 6Th Floor, E 602, Nazrene Appts Marve Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Vs. Road, Kharodi Malad West Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400095 Mumbai-400051 Maharashtra (Pan: Aacpq0820G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Anoop Kumar Agarwal, Ca Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Act Dated 28.08.2025, Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel – 1, Mumbai Vide Order Dated 28.07.2025 Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2025-26/1078981626(1) Dated 28.07.2025 U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 69

appellant's objections on mere presumptions and without thoroughly examining the facts and evidence presented, and confirming the proposed variations in the draft assessment order with addition of Rs. 14,70,000/- to the income of the appellant u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income

Movate Technologies Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2467/CHNY/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

order on 21.07.2023 proposing a total adjustment of Rs.10,49,92,531/-. Subsequent to the order of the TPO, the AO passed a draft assessment order on 26.09.2023 u/s.144C r.w.s 92CA (3) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an objections

Saikat Chinmay Bhattacharya, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT, International Taxation, Circle 1(1), Bangalore

ITA 582/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(It)A No.582/Bang/2025

For Appellant: CA Darshit Naik, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 69

above said income. 4. Return of income of his sister etc. As the assessee is an eligible assessee, the AO passed an draft assessment order on 09/03/2024 proposing to add Rs.76,70,000/- under the head income from other sources as unexplained investment

Rajeev Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1315/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 153ASection 153DSection 69

Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. Addl. CIT has given approval under section 153D of draft assessment orders for Assessment Year 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17 to 2019-20, in just one letter. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the present case ... gone through the seized material, assessment records including the replies filed by the assessee with reference to the additions/ disallowance proposed in the drafts assessment order. Rather the Addl. CIT referred the action of the AO in making enquiries and considering all the material and providing sufficient opportunity

Rajeev Aggarwal, Faridabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 Faridabad, Faridabad Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1314/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 153ASection 153DSection 69

Sureshkumar Kasturram Purohit, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Int. Tax, Ward - 2, Ahmedabad

ITA 386/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 144CSection 148Section 69

dated 23- 03-2023. 2.1. In response, the assessee filed a belated return which was considered invalid one. Therefore the Assessing Officer issued draft assessment order dated 26-03-2024 u/s. 144C of the Act proposing assess the total income of Rs.57,24,172/-. The assessee filed objections before ... against the proposed addition of Rs. 57,24,172/- as per the Draft Assessment Order. The DRP has erred in not appreciating correct facts of the case while confirming the impugned addition. 2. The DRP has erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant had deposited cash

DCIT(It)-2(2)(2), Mumbai, Bkc vs. Hsbc Bank Plc, United Kingdom

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4621/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit(It)-2(2)(2), Mumbai Hsbc Bank Plc Room No.606, 6Th Floor, Kautriya 8 Canada Square, London, Bhavan, G Block, Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Foreign United Kingdom- Mumbai-400051. 999999, United Kingdom. (Pan : Aabch325P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 56, Mumbai Vide Order, Dated 02.04.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ld. Dcit (It) 2(2)(2), Mumbai U/S. 144C(3) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 05.02.2018, For Ay 2014-15. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: 1. "Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, For The Issue Of Expenses Of Rs. 3,77,38,994/-, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Relying On Para 16 Of Itat'S Order For A.Y. 2011-12 & Para 8 Of Itat'S Order For A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 As The Orders U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) For A.Y.S 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Never Examined The Issue Of 'Royalty' For The Reimbursement Received From Hsbc Securities & Capital Markets (India) Private Limited (Hsch).”

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92C

vide order u/s.92CA(3), dated 27.10.2017 accepted the ALP of the transactions reported by the assessee and no adjustment was proposed. A draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act was passed by the ld. AO on 29.12.2017. Assessee requested the ld. AO to finalize