“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

Neeraj Kumar Sethi, Delhi vs. ITO, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

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

ITA 9/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

before framing the assessment seeking objections to the proposed variations to the Income. Moreover, the amount of addition worked out in the draft assessment order issued by the AO is absolutely irrelevant hence the notice is void ab-initio." 4. Brief facts emerging from records are that the assessee

Rahul Gupta, Hardoi vs. ITO, Ward 3(), Hardoi

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

ITA 197/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Pranav Pandey, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 69o

evidence regarding cash deposited, another notice under section 142(1) was issued to him. Since the assessee did not submit a reply, a draft assessment order was issued in which the income of the assessee was proposed to be assessed at Rs. 2,59,41,250/-. In response thereof

Hazira Port Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Cicle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the above terms

ITA 265/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri Ankit SahniFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT DR

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

Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO passed order under Section 92CA(3) of the Act, wherein certain additions were proposed. The Assessing Officer passed draft assessment order under Section144C of the Act on 22.07.2021. The assessee objected to the additions made by the Assessing Officer before Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), vide

Kotagiri Cooperative Store, Nilgiris vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ooty

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

ITA 1951/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1951/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Kotagiri Cooperative Store, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1, Kotagiri Post , Kotagiri, Ward 1, The Nilgiris 643 217. Ooty. [Pan:Aaaak3367P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.06.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. On Perusal Of The Assessment Order, We Note That The Assessing Officer Disallowed The Claim Of Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(A)(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Not Allowable As Per The 2

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)

running Public Distribution System (PDS) fair price shops. She further argued that the Assessing Officer failed to issue mandatory show-cause notice and draft assessment order as required under CBDT SOP dated 19.11.2020, is in violation of nature justice and prayed to afford an opportunity before the Assessing Officer ... perusal of the impugned order, we note that the ld. CIT(A) has not given any findings for non-service of SCN, draft assessment order, etc. Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the orders of authorities below and remand the matter to the file

Zta Infratech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Cent Circle, Meerut

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4497/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

such as seized material, assessment records including replies filed by the assessee with reference to the additions/ disallowance proposed in the drafts assessment order, etc. As per Id. AR, the Adl. CIT has not verified the material, nor any reference was made in the approval letter and thus ... dated 21.09.2021 4. On perusal of the above it can be seen that: (i) AO had submitted 7 case records along with draft assessment orders u/s 153C of the Act for AYs 2013-14 to 2018-19 in the case of PROVIEW RISHABH INFRA

Zta Infratech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle, Meerut

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4496/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

Aditya Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CC-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8405/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.3622 और 8405 /िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Wadwa, Shivam Garg & Harsh Raghav, &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 153D

page 68 of the paper book) submitted that a perusal of said letter would show that the AO had only sent draft assessment order u/s. 148 of the Act to seek approval u/s. 153D of the Act from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (JCIT). The said communication clearly shows ... that no relevant documents or assessment folder were sent alognwith the draft assessment order. The JCIT vide letter dated 21.12.2017 (at page 69 of the paper book) accorded approval u/s. 153D of the Act only after perusal of the draft assessment order. Without examining any material whatsoever on which

DCIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi vs. Aditya Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5199/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.3622 और 8405 /िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Wadwa, Shivam Garg & Harsh Raghav, &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 153D

Aditya Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-19, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3622/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalआअसं.3622 और 8405 /िद"ी/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Wadwa, Shivam Garg & Harsh Raghav, &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 153D

Tata Communications Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

ITA 3515/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

various details. Based on the order of the TPO and his own enquiry conducted in course of assessment proceeding, the A.O. framed a draft assessment order. 4. Against the draft assessment order so framed, the assessee raised objections before ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (‘ld. DRP’ for short

Ebaotech India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 6359/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: The Authorities Below Are That The Assessee Is A Subsidiary Company Of The Ebao Group Which Is Globally Diversified In Insurance Software Having Its Headquarters In Shanghai, China & The Operations Of The Group Are Located In Many Countries Including India, Australia, China, Malaysia, Japan & Singapore, With Extensive Coverage In Insurance Software & Technology.

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

report;- 4 Ebaotech India Private Limited 5 Ebaotech India Private Limited 6 Ebaotech India Private Limited 7 Ebaotech India Private Limited 7. Hence, draft assessment order was passed in conformity with the arm’s length price as determined by the TPO and accordingly, an amount

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. K K Ventura, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands

ITA 5331/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 260Section 68

channel and provided the copy of its bank statement highlighting the credit and debit entries. 3) Accordingly, a show cause notice along with Draft Assessment Order was issued to assessee requiring to show cause why the amount of Rs.80,00,000/-outstanding as on 31/03/2018 in books of accounts under ... through banking channel and provided the copy of its bank statement highlighting the credit and debit entries. Accordingly, as show cause notice with Draft Assessment order was issued to assessee to show cause why the amount of RS. 10,00,000/- outstanding as on 31/03/2018 in books of accounts under

Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

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

ITA 5256/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendram Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80G

protective adjustment of INR 21,92,30,12,860); which was subsequently incorporated and confirmed vide the draft assessment order issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer ('AO') dated 26 September 2023. In addition, in the addition, in the said draft assessment order, the Ld. AO also made adjustment on account ... respectively. This resulted in total adjustment amount of INR 76,60,62,59,033; in the said draft assessment order. Consequently, the Appellant then filed the objections against the said draft assessment order, before the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel ('DRP') on 20 October 2023. The Hon'ble DRP issued

Hemant Kumar, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rewari

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5157/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklahemant Kumar Vs. Ito, Ward-I 1829/B, Nai Basti, Model Town, Rewari – 123401 Rewari – 123401 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ghnpk1715A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT, DR

Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 143ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 153DSection 69A

Ward-1, Rewari requesting the Addl.CIT, Rewari Range, Rewari for grant of approval under Section 153D of the Act wherein draft assessment order was enclosed for ready reference. It is the argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee that the mandate of Section 153D necessitates a conscious ... relating to the issue involved in the assessment placed before the order approving authority under Section 153D of the Act. Admittedly, except the draft assessment order none of these aforesaid materials are appears to have been placed before the order approving authority as the same is not reflecting from page

Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 3724/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendram Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80G

Avinandita Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Bhuabenswar

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 367/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Jena &Mohit Sheth, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 153D

found no suggestion to give the AO in regard to the assessment much less any discussion with the AO in regard to the draft assessment orders proposed. When this is considered in line with the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Nayyar ... apply to Section 153D of the Act. There are three or four requirements that are mandated therein, (i) the AO should submit the draft assessment order "well in time". Here it was submitted just two days prior to the deadline thereby putting the approving authority under great pressure

Avinandita Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 Bhuabenswar, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 365/CTK/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Jena &Mohit Sheth, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 153D

Soumendra Kumar Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2 Bhuabenswar, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 364/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Jena &Mohit Sheth, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 153D

Vandana Deepak Bankoti, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Nagpur

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 180/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri M. G. Moryani, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54BSection 56Section 69A

hence keeping in view the time constraint and the provisions made in this regard, the proceedings were completed by the AO as per draft assessment order provided to the Assessee. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition/disallowance before the Ld. Commissioner who by impugned order set aside

Magnaquest Technologies Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.736/Hyd

ITA 743/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, G Srinivasa RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 438Section 43B

r.w.s 144B of the Act is bad-in-law as the same was passed without issuing a show-cause notice cum draft assessment order as mandated u/s 144B(xvi)(b) of the Act and hence the impugned assessment order is liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts ... 743/Hyd./2025 position of law that as the quantum appeal is non-est due to non- issuance of show-cause notice cum draft assessment order before finalizing the assessment, the penalty order passed based on the non-est quantum order is also bad-in-law and is liable