← 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

Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Ghazibad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2078/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Shri Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Vs Dcit, R-5/21, Raj Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201002. Ghaziabad Pan-Abcpb4457B Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Central Circle, House No.21, Sector-5, Ghaziabad Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad-201002. Pan-Abcpb4457B Appellant Respondent

Section 1

through the seized material and assessment records including the replies filed by the assessee with reference to the additions/ disallowance proposed in the drafts assessment order. As per ld. AR, the Addl. CIT has not verified the material, nor any reference was made in the approval and thus ... Addl. CIT had occasion to go through the assessment records and seized material pertaining to the issues on which additions were proposed in draft assessment order. 9. Ld. AR finally submits that common approval is given for various Assessment Years and for five different assessee which is contrary

Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2077/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Shri Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Vs Dcit, R-5/21, Raj Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201002. Ghaziabad Pan-Abcpb4457B Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Central Circle, House No.21, Sector-5, Ghaziabad Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad-201002. Pan-Abcpb4457B Appellant Respondent

Section 1

through the seized material and assessment records including the replies filed by the assessee with reference to the additions/ disallowance proposed in the drafts assessment order. As per ld. AR, the Addl. CIT has not verified the material, nor any reference was made in the approval and thus ... Addl. CIT had occasion to go through the assessment records and seized material pertaining to the issues on which additions were proposed in draft assessment order. 9. Ld. AR finally submits that common approval is given for various Assessment Years and for five different assessee which is contrary

Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2076/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Shri Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Vs Dcit, R-5/21, Raj Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201002. Ghaziabad Pan-Abcpb4457B Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Central Circle, House No.21, Sector-5, Ghaziabad Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad-201002. Pan-Abcpb4457B Appellant Respondent

Section 1

through the seized material and assessment records including the replies filed by the assessee with reference to the additions/ disallowance proposed in the drafts assessment order. As per ld. AR, the Addl. CIT has not verified the material, nor any reference was made in the approval and thus ... Addl. CIT had occasion to go through the assessment records and seized material pertaining to the issues on which additions were proposed in draft assessment order. 9. Ld. AR finally submits that common approval is given for various Assessment Years and for five different assessee which is contrary

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Ghaziabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1941/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Shri Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Vs Dcit, R-5/21, Raj Nagar, Central Circle, Ghaziabad-201002. Ghaziabad Pan-Abcpb4457B Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Acit, Vs Umesh Kumar Bajaj, Central Circle, House No.21, Sector-5, Ghaziabad Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad-201002. Pan-Abcpb4457B Appellant Respondent

Section 1

through the seized material and assessment records including the replies filed by the assessee with reference to the additions/ disallowance proposed in the drafts assessment order. As per ld. AR, the Addl. CIT has not verified the material, nor any reference was made in the approval and thus ... Addl. CIT had occasion to go through the assessment records and seized material pertaining to the issues on which additions were proposed in draft assessment order. 9. Ld. AR finally submits that common approval is given for various Assessment Years and for five different assessee which is contrary

Veritas Storage (Singapore) Pte. Ltd, Singapore vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1913/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Gulati, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vedanshu Tripathi, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)

that make available condition is satisfied. Appeal of the assessee on Ground Nos. 4 and 5 are allowed." 8. On perusal of the draft assessment order and the final assessment order, we note that during the present assessment year i.e. AY 2020-21, the Assessing Officer has accepted the claim

Stryker India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2449/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Manish Agarwalstryker India Private Limited Assistant Commissioner C-5, Sda Commercial Complex, Of Income Tax, New Delhi-110016. Vs. Circle-22(2), New Delhi. Pan-Aaecs2513F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 92C

after applying libor +400 bases point viz-a-viz interest on outstanding receivables. After arrival of TPO order, the AO passed the draft assessment order. 3. Against this draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP directed the TPO to exclude one comparable

M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1549/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Finding of the Bench:- 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Perusal of the draft assessment order would show that the AO has not at all discussed this issue at the time of assessment, neither the same was subject Kohinoor Foods ... contract in exchange of shares as no variation had been suggested by the Assessing Officer on this aspect of the matter in his draft assessment order. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the jurisdiction of the DRP in terms of Section 144C(8) was that

M/S Kohinoor Foods Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1900/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Finding of the Bench:- 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Perusal of the draft assessment order would show that the AO has not at all discussed this issue at the time of assessment, neither the same was subject Kohinoor Foods ... contract in exchange of shares as no variation had been suggested by the Assessing Officer on this aspect of the matter in his draft assessment order. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the revenue that the jurisdiction of the DRP in terms of Section 144C(8) was that

Mahant Pandey, Rohtas vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)

facts in making above the order without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice”; draft assessment order has not been issued by Ld. AO which made the order not only bad but also illegal. Apart from justifying additions on merits, they ... disputed the absence of service of the draft assessment order and lack of opportunity of hearing to Petitioner. It is stated that there is no violation of provisions of the Act as ample opportunity was granted to petitioner from time to time to explain its claim with supporting documents. That

Mahant Pandey, Rohtas vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 181/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)

facts in making above the order without giving an adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice”; draft assessment order has not been issued by Ld. AO which made the order not only bad but also illegal. Apart from justifying additions on merits, they ... disputed the absence of service of the draft assessment order and lack of opportunity of hearing to Petitioner. It is stated that there is no violation of provisions of the Act as ample opportunity was granted to petitioner from time to time to explain its claim with supporting documents. That

Arun Kumar Gupta, Kanpur vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(2), Surat

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

ITA 9/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.9/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Hybrid Hearing) Arun Kumar Gupta Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ Flat No.316, Srishti Suyraj Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Surat, 4Th Vs. Apartment, G.T. Road, Floor, Room No.410, Aayakar Ramadevi, Kanpur-208 007 Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afapg 2389 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 127Section 14Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

Arunkumar Gupta 8.2. That the Ld.A.O has erred in law in not passing the original assessment order and providing only the draft assessment order, therefore, the impugned reassessment order is void ab-initio and liable to be quashed. 9.1 That the impugned reassessment order was e-mailed on 10.01.2020, therefore

Prithvi Information Solutions Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 47/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali MohanRao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 143(3)

directions u/s 144C(5) of the Act within 9 months ITA No.47/Hyd/2017 7 from the end of the month in which the draft assessment order has passed. 14. Without prejudice to the above grounds, in the present case draft assessment order was passed on 28.03.2014 and the time limit ... invalid as the same has been passed after the time limit of 9 months from the end of the month in which draft assessment order was passed i.e. draft assessment order was passed on 28.03.2014. 16. The Appellant may add or alter or amend or modify ort substitute or delete

Narayanan, Chromepet vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

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

ITA 695/CHNY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.695/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Narayanan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, F-1, 37/60, Guru Balaji Apts, International Taxation Ward 2(1), First Main Road, New Colony, Chennai. Chromepet, Chennai 600 044. [Pan:Ackpn6481A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 06.01.2025 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward 2(1), Chennai Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. When The Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 24.07.2025, We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, We Find Paper

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

short-term capital gains in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer proposed draft assessment order dated 18.03.2024 under section 144C(1) of the Act. 4. The assessee filed objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel on 17.04.2024 with other details. Since the assessee ... against the addition on account of short term capital gain amounting to ₹.65,000/- as proposed in the draft assessment order. We find the Assessing Officer has given benefit of indexed cost of acquisition for land and building and accordingly determined long term capital gain at ₹.5,69,344/-, which

Naval Kishor Mundra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for

ITA 4200/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 69

invalid. b) Addition was made purely on assumption and surmise basis without bringing any material against the appellant. c) Addition amount mentioned in Draft Assessment Order cannot be enhanced in final assessment order without issuing new draft assessment order with show cause notice. d) Nodefect in books of account ... invalid. b) Addition was made purely on assumption and surmise basis without bringing any material against the appellant. c) Addition amount mentioned in Draft Assessment Order cannot be enhanced in final assessment order without issuing new draft assessment order with show cause notice. d) No defect in books of account

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as per our aforesaid

ITA 2847/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2847/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Private Limited 403-404, Delphil B Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai Iit, Mumbai-400 076 Pan : Aabct3207A ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-15(3)(1), Mumbai ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vipul Soni Revenue By : Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :14.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vipul SoniFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 32(1)Section 80G

response, the assessee placed reliance upon the Business Transfer Agreements, Valuation Report, and some judicial rulings. The Assessing Officer (—AO), vide draft assessment order dated 24/03/2014 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee on the following basis ... satisfy the definition of an asset to be recognised as an intangible asset as per Accounting Standard-26. 8. Accordingly, the AO, vide draft assessment order, disallowed the claim of depreciation made by the assessee in respect of manufacturing contracts and supply/maintenance contracts and added the same to the total

Rajesh Karsanbhai Patel, Thane vs. DCIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 2092/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 153a

Office at Bhopal in which there is a significant distance. It is not humanly possible to look into assessment records as well as draft assessment orders thereon and apply its own mind objectively by a senior designated authority involving such complex matters and grant approval as contemplated u/s 153D

Karsanbhai Khimabhai Patel, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 1574/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 153a

Office at Bhopal in which there is a significant distance. It is not humanly possible to look into assessment records as well as draft assessment orders thereon and apply its own mind objectively by a senior designated authority involving such complex matters and grant approval as contemplated u/s 153D

Karsanbhai Khimabhai Patel, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circke-17, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No

ITA 1573/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 153a

Office at Bhopal in which there is a significant distance. It is not humanly possible to look into assessment records as well as draft assessment orders thereon and apply its own mind objectively by a senior designated authority involving such complex matters and grant approval as contemplated u/s 153D

Btl Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7430/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

respondent/assessee. The TPO opined, that an upward adjustment amounting to Rs.56,30,78,638/- would have to be made. Accordingly, a draft assessment order was framed by the AO on 31.03.2014. 8. Qua this, respondent/assessee preferred its objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP dismissed the objections

Btl Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Faridabad

ITA 3620/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 234B

ITA Nos.7430/Del/2019 & 3618 to 3620/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA