“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

Shri Amitkumar Jasvantlal Doshi, Surendranagar vs. The DCIT, Cir.-4 (1) (1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 842/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 842/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Amitkumar Jasvantlal Doshi Cit(Appeals), Nfac-Delhi, Vs. 16, Ashok Nagar Society, Meghani Road, Dcit, Circ – 4(1)(1), Surendranagar-363001 Ahmedabad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aazpd3668C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Krunal Karia, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Krunal Karia, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

interest income earned@9% after deducting interest expense@12% paid to friends and relatives u/s 57 of the Act. With issuance of a Draft Assessment Order dated 23.03.2022, the Ld. Assessing Officer had proposed a variation to the Income of Your Assessee to the tune ... calculated above is hereby disallowed and added to the income of the assessee....” 9. Accurate and satisfactory response was filed to this Draft Assessment Order which was never rebutted by the Assessing Officer and the Final Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Act was framed on 25.09.2022 with

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 497/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

assessing officer maintained that the statement of Naresh Jain need not be given to the appellant, as it was reproduced in the draft assessment order communicated to the appellant in the form of show cause notice dated 24/09/2021. Apart from the statement of Shri Naresh Jain, the assessing officer mentioned

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1565/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 1555/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Respondent: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Tatun Guha, Siliguri vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Siliguri

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

ITA 1644/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Oct 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2013-14 Tatun Guha………..………….……………………….……….……….……Appellant Namita Nilay, College Para, Siliguri, W.B - 734001.. [Pan: Ahbpg6041R] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Siliguri………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu & Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 27, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.07.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 282

Tatun Guha 31.03.2021. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act had also issued on 11.08.21 and further a show-cause notice cum draft assessment order proposing addition of Rs.2,63,44,488/- on account of capital gain was issued on 24.03.2022. The Assessing Officer did not accept the submission

Rajeev Surana, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4196/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Rajeev Surana, Income Tax Officer, Ward 201 Shamiana 67F, Walkeshwar 19(3)(1), Room No. 202, Road, Walkeswar, Matrummandir Tardeo, V Mumbai-400006, Maharashtra Mumbai-400007, S Maharashtra

For Appellant: Shri Aditya SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

about the rise in capital was on account of profit from proprietary business and profit from share trading, but on receipt of the draft assessment order, the assessee has come forward with a new story of admitting a mistake in quoting the figure in his Return of Income. To substantiate

Solvay S A, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2071/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vii)

both u/s.9(1)(vii) of the Act as well as under Article 12(3)(a) of the tax treaty. Accordingly, he framed the draft assessment order, treating the receipts as ‘royalty income'. 5. Against the draft assessment order so framed, the assessee raised objections before the ld. DRP. 6. While

Swaty Mehta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

ITA 2551/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2549/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Sonia Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2551/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Swaty Mehta Acit, 97, Eastern Avenue, Sainik Farms, Vs. E-2, Central Circle-17, Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Acapm1777A Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153D

categorically mentions the assessment records in these cases were sent by the AO alongwith draft assessment orders . It can also be seen that the AO had sought approval u/s 153D of the Act vide his letter dated 13.12.2018 and the Range Head granted the said approval vide letter dated ... Sonia Mehta & Swati Mehta approval u/s 153D was granted by the Addl. CIT, Central Range-5, New Delhi on 15.12.2018 approving the draft assessment orders by way of a common approval for various assessment years i.e. from assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 as under: 6. Whether a common

Sonia Mehta, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-17, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed as

ITA 2549/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 153D

Best City Projects India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 4(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5294/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2008-09] M/S Best City Projects India Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Pvt. Ltd. Room No.385A, C.R. Building, Plot No.H-8, 1St Floor, Best Vs New Delhi110002 Plaza, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 Pan-Aaccb7635D Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor, Shri Shivam Yadav Shri Sumit Lal Chandani, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocates. Revenue By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 153ASection 153BSection 153DSection 254Section 68

sacrosanct and cannot be violated. In the impugned case the AO had passed final assessment order without passing the required draft assessment order. Hon’ble High Court ordered that since passing of draft assessment order and the consequential option of the taxpayer to approach the dispute resolution panel comprises

ACIT, CC- 15, New Delhi vs. Saloni Narang, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1496/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Asst. Commissioner Of Income Saloni Narang, Tax, Central Circle-15, 5, Dr. G.G. Narang Marg, Room No.353, E-2, Ara Vs Cavalary Lane, Centre, Jhandewalan Ext. Delhi-110007 New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aafpn2692C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Rajinder Kaur, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

under 153D of the Act, requires the approving authority, i.e. Joint Commissioner to verify the issues raised by the Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order and apply his mind to ascertain as to whether the required procedure has been followed by the Assessing Officer or not in framing ... 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 order under Section 153A." [Emphasis supplied] 12. It is observed that the Court in the case of Sapna Gupta (supra

Kothandaraman Prakaash, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-1, Vellore

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

ITA 2290/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2290/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kothandaraman Prakaash, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, H/2, Nethaji Market, Ward 1, Vellore 632 004. Vellore. [Pan: Aarpp4271H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Abhishek Murali, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.P. Solomon, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 80 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.P. Solomon, JCIT

Section 143(3)

within a period of 75 days from the date of receipt of this order. The respondent shall also serve a copy of the draft assessment order and show-cause notice on the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner shall

Vineet Prakash Bansal HUF, Moh. Khatiyan, Dhampur vs. DCIT/ACIT(Central), Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 3110/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Vineet Prakash Bansal Huf Vs Income Tax Officer, Moh. Khatiyan, Dhampur, Aayakar Bhawan, New Civil Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh Lines, Moradabad, Pan:Aadhv3779A Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent

Section 132Section 153CSection 153DSection 69

prayed for quashing the assessment order. 3 Vineet Prakash Bansal HUF Vs. ITO 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the draft assessment order has been perused by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax while according approval u/s 153D of the Act and the approval has been granted ... examination of various issues and discussion with the assessing officer telephonically several times and after having a meeting with AO on 18.03.2021 the draft assessment orders submitted by AO are hereby approved u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the following cases:- Name and PAN A.Yr

Virtue Drilling Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT, Circle Intl. Tax-3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1399/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.M/S Virtue Drilling Pte Ltd. Vs Dcit 146, 11-01, Robinson Road, Circle International Taxation Singapore-068909 3(1)(1), Delhi Pan: Aadcv1193R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ved Jain, Adv& Sh. Ayushgarg, Ca Revenue By Sh. Saroj Kumar Dubey, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vi)

44BB of the Act, @ 10% of such receipts (i.e. Rs. 6,51,23,520/-). 3. The Ld. A.O. in the draft assessment order dated 26/03/2024 u/s 144C (1) of the Act, proposed to treat the income of the Assessee as royalty ... giving on hire/leasing of rigs as profits under section 44BB of the Act. While the Assessing Officer at the time of framing the draft assessment orders has treated it as FTS, learned DRP is of the view that the receipts are in the nature of royalty under section

Kailash Gahlot, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as above

ITA 3431/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3431/Del./2023, A.Y. 2015-16 Kailash Gahlot Deputy Commissioner Of C-6/6172, Vasant Kunj, Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Central Circle-4, Pan: Aajpg2849N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ca Sh. Anmol Jha, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.09.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 153DSection 69C

Approving Authority under section 153D of the Act does not act as an Appellate Authority to reduce/enhance/allow/disallow any addition proposed in the draft assessment order while giving approval as the Addl. CIT is not empowered to do so under section 153D of the Act. In other word, the 18 Kailash ... Gahlot Range Head cannot give any direction which may create any additional liability beyond what was proposed in the draft assessment order. That is why the opportunity of being heard is not mandated under section 153D of the Act. Thus, no prejudice can be caused to the assessee while granting

Vivaan Prakash, Bijnor vs. DCIT/ACIT(Central), Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1500/DEL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Vivaan Prakash Vs Dcit/Acit (Central) S/O Vibhu Prakash Bansal, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Khatiyaan Street, Dhampur, Moradabad, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Pan:Dggpp9920P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Amit Goel, Ca & Sh. Pravanv Yadav, Adv Revenue By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 132Section 153CSection 153D

Appeal and prayed for quashing the assessment order. 3 Vivaan Prakash Vs DCIT 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the draft assessment order has been perused by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax while according approval u/s 153D of the Act and the approval has been granted ... examination of various issues and discussion with the assessing officer telephonically several times and after having a meeting with AO on 18.03.2021 the draft assessment orders submitted by AO are hereby approved u/s 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the following case:- Name and PAN A.Yr

Brij Kishore Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 574/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 572/Del/2022 (A.Y. 2014-15) Ita No. 574/Del/2022 (A.Y. 2016-17) Brij Kishore Sabharwal Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Rra Tax India D-28, South Income Tax, Extension Part-1 Delhi Central Circle-16, Pan: Aaxps6830P Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv, Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv (Through Vc) & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue By Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 132Section 153CSection 153D

pronouncements, sought for allowing the Appeal and prayed for quashing the assessment order. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the draft assessment order has been perused by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax while according approval u/s 153D of the Act and the approval has been granted ... 20/05/2024 at 21:34:51 requires the approving authority, i.e. Joint Commissioner to verify the issues raised by the Assessing Officer in the draft assessment order and apply his mind to ascertain as to whether the required procedure has been followed by the Assessing Officer or not in framing

Brij Kishore Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle -16, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 573/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Section 132Section 153CSection 153D

Brij Kishore Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 572/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Section 132Section 153CSection 153D

Brij Kishore Sabharwal, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 571/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 153CSection 153D