← 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

Haseeb Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int Tax 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 235/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17 Haseeb Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh Income Tax Officer, 9/301, Vijay Park Ghodbunder (International Taxation)- Road, Kasarvadavli, Thane, Vs 4(2)(1), Mumbai - 400601 Mumbai (Pan : Bscps9388A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Nishant Thakkar, Shri Rajesh Poojary & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, Advocates Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Assessment Passed Under The Directions Of Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2024-25/1070521602(1), Dated 21.11.2024, Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. Reassessment Proceedigns: 1.1 The Income Tax Officer 1 (1), Thane ("The J.A.O.") Erred In Passing The Order U/S. 148A(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 28Th March 2023 & Issuing Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act On 29Th March 2023 In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 151A Of The Act Read With E-Assessment Of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022. 2 Haseeb Mohammed Iqbal Shaikh Ay 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Shri Rajesh Poojary and Ms. Jasmin Amalsadwala, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 56Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

ADDITION U/S. 69A OF THE ACT: 3.1 The DRP erred in not interfering in the findings arrived by the AO in his draft assessment order wherein the AO made an addition of Rs. 22,00,000/- to the income of the Appellant ... erred in directing the AO to confirm the addition of Rs. 19,18,104/- as proposed in his draft assessment order to the income of the Appellant u/s. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act being the difference between the stamp duty valuation and the valuation as per the agreement

Hari Kishan Rathi, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

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

ITA 2242/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhari Kishan Rathi, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 14, A – 184, Shivalik, Malviya Vihar, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 007. (Pan : Aakpr2574C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mayank Patawari, Advocate Shri Akash Ojha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2025 Date Of Order : 07.11.2025 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman, Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-31, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 11.07.2023 For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ay 2015-16 :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit (A) Is Bad Both In Eyes Of Law & On Facts. 2. That The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That Approval U/S 153D Of The Act Granted By Addl. Cit On 30.12.2019 Was Not Accorded In A Mechanical Manner. 2.1 That The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Ignoring The Fact That Such Approval Had Been Taken From Addl.Cit On 30.12.2019 When The 2 Compliance For Show Cause Notice Issued On 30.12.2019 Was Fixed For 31.12.2019. 3. That The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Addition To The Extent Of Rs.2,27,717/- On Account Of Renovation Expenses.” 3. Before Deciding The Legal Issue In Dispute, We May Gainfully Reproduce The Approval U/S. 153D Of The Income Tax Act (For Short ‘The Act’), Which Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 153ASection 153D

mind. 16. In the present case, the ITAT, while specifically noting that the approval was granted on the same day when the draft assessment orders were sent, has observed as under:- 9 "10. We have gone through the approval granted by the ld. Addl. CIT on 30.12.2018 u/s 153D ... that a letter dated 30.12.2018 was filed by the ld. AO before the ld. Addl. CIT seeking approval of draft assessment order u/s 153D of the Act. The ld. Addl. CIT has accorded approval for the said draft assessment orders on the very same day i.e., on 30.12.2018 for seven