“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

Sharad Kumar Choradia, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in Nos

ITA 979/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 153D

period from 30-6-1995 to 31-12-1996 the approving authority was the CIT.). The Assessing Officer should submit the draft assessment order for such approval well in time. The submission of the draft order must be docketed in the order-sheet and a copy of the draft order

Sharad Kumar Choradia, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in Nos

ITA 978/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 153D

Sharad Kumar Choradia, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in Nos

ITA 977/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 153D

Sharad Kumar Choradia, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in Nos

ITA 976/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.975 to 980/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2019-20 | Sharad Kumar Choradia | बनाम | ACIT, | 3-CHHA-4, Jawahar Nagar, | Vs. | Central Circle-02, | Jaipur | | Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AALPC3487C | अपीलार्थी/ Appellant | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CA & Sh. Kapil Khejrolia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 153D

Sharad Kumar Choradia, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in Nos

ITA 975/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 153D

Ramasamy Pushpa, Namakkal vs. ITO, International Taxation Ward-2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 489/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.489/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ramasamy Pushpa, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D.No. 2/31, Sankarampalayam Village, International Taxation Ward 2(1), Kumaripalayam Post, Chennai. Namakkal 637 015. [Pan:Cvwpp7128R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.01.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A ""For Respondent: Shri C. Sivakumar, Addl. CIT

Section 144CSection 147Section 56

mention of any non-resident. He argued that since no transfer pricing issue relating to international transaction involved in the year under consideration, draft assessment order passed under section 144C of the Act is not maintainable as the assessee was not an “eligible assessee” in the year under consideration

Sfdc Ireland Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax- 3(1)(1) Intl Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 1475/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153

respondent-assessee and the AO being duly apprised of the factum of merger. Despite the above, it chose to make the draft assessment order in the name of a party which no longer existed on that date. This was, therefore, not a case where the factum of merger had either

M/S.Apollo Tyres Ltd, Cochin vs. The Principal Commissioner of Incometax, Cochin

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

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

vide order dated 28.10.2016 passed u/s. 92CA of the Act. On receipt of the TPO’s order the AO passed draft assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Act on 30.12.2016 proposing to make the following additions: - i. TP adjustment – Rs. 3,48,96,832/- ii. Disallowance ... Disallowance of pre-operative expenditure details of which were extracted by the AO vide para 9 of the draft assessment order. These pre-operative expenditure was incurred for the purpose of setting up of new plant at Chennai. In the books of account, the appellant company had capitalised

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 360/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.356, 357, 358 & 360/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / A.Y. : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Ab Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., 154, 1St Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Delhi. अपीलार्थी/Appellant स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalca0327J प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent & C.O. Nos.17 To 20/Chd/2025 In

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Assessee. The ld. CIT DR pointed out from the letter written by DCIT, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh dated 15.06.2021 that the draft assessment order in the case of Assessee was sent and enclosures were assessment records. She argued that JCIT vide approval dated 19.06.2021 has gone into the assessment records ... pass the search assessment order u/s 153A or u/s 153C of the Act only after obtaining prior approval of the draft assessment order and the conclusions reached thereon from the ld. JCIT, in terms of section 153D of the Act. This is a mandatory requirement of law. The said approval

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 358/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 357/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2 Ludhiana, Ludhiana vs. Ab Alcobev Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, Cross

ITA 356/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.356, 357, 358 & 360/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / A.Y. : 2016-17, 2017-18, 2019-20 & 2020-21 The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. Vs Ab Alcobev Pvt. Ltd., 154, 1St Floor, Aggarwal Plaza-1, Anandvas Shakurpur, North West, Delhi. अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalca0327J & C.O. Nos.17 To 20/Chd/2025 In

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

Ashutosh Biswas, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Burdwan

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

ITA 1070/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 69A

were issued but no compliance was received from the assessee. Further, a show cause notice along with the draft assessment order was issued to the assessee but the same were also not responded by the assessee. In view of non- compliance by the assessee, the Ld. AO added

Kobsai Hospitallities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 291/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

assessment should not be completed in a best judgment manner. In the absence of any reply from the assessee, a draft assessment order was sent to the assessee proposing to add back the amount invested in the purchase of land and in payment of stamp duty, as unexplained investment under

Kobsai Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Lucknow

In the result, ITA No.290/LKW/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes while

ITA 290/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(a)Section 69

Ebix Travels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 47/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararjan K

Section 143Section 144BSection 144CSection 234ASection 234BSection 32Section 92CSection 92D

total income pursuant to the direction passed by The Dispute Resolution Panel 1, New Delhi (the learned DRP) dated 27/9/2024 in the draft assessment order passed on 26/12/2023 wherein the order under section 92CA (3) was passed by the learned TPO proposing the adjustment. 2. Assessee is aggrieved with ... lakhs and made a shortfall adjustment of ₹ 48,174,000/—. Accordingly, order under section 92CA (3) was passed. 13. Accordingly, the draft assessment order under section 144C (1) was passed on 26/12/2023 proposing and variation of the above amount in the transfer pricing adjustment. Further it was found that

Taran Pal Wadhwan, Delhi vs. ACIT CC- 8, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2688/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 153CSection 153D

Learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range -2, New Delhi seeking approval under Section 153D of the Act for the draft assessment orders. This letter is enclosed in page 17 of the paper book. On perusal of the said letter, it is very clear that the Learned AO placed ... only the draft assessment orders before the Learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax while seeking approval under Section 153D of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the said letter dated 29-03-2023 addressed by the Learned AO to Learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax is reproduced herein

Taran Pal Wadhwan, Delhi vs. ACIT CC 8, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2687/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 153CSection 153D

Future First Info Services Private Ltd., Delhi vs. AO Circle-7(1), Delhi

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

ITA 672/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 92D

outstanding receivables from AE and added the same into the returned income. Thus, by making additions aggregating to INR 164,271,568, the draft assessment order 8 Future First Info Services Pvt. Ltd. dated 20 April 2021 was passed. The assessee filed the ‘Objection’ against the said draft assessment order

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3663/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

Section 153Section 153ASection 153D

DELHI in the case of PCIT vs. Anuj Bansal ITA 368/2023 Dated July 13,2023 -No_Assessment records were_sent along with draft assessment order -There were infirmities in the figures of Original Return of income and Assessed income. -Addl. CIT did not apply his mind ... 153D does not prescribe any specific procedure or method for the grant of approval. As long as Ld. JCIT is satisfied with the draft assessment order and conveys his approval, the mandate of law stands fulfilled. 7. In the present case, the approval was in fact granted under Section 153D