“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

Jitendra Kumar, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 55/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69

gone through the seized material, assessment records including the replies filed by the assessee with reference to the additions/ disallowance proposed in the drafts assessment order. Rather the Addl. CIT referred the action of the AO in making enquiries and considering all the material and providing sufficient opportunity ... verified the material, nor any reference was made in the approval letter about the material supplied to him by the AO alongwith the draft assessment orders for his consideration and thus it is a mechanical approval given. He further states that the Addl. CIT was at Gurugram and the assessing

Jitendra Kumar, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 250Section 69

Oman Telecommunications Company Saog, Oman vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax/ Circle International Tax 2(2)(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1023/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Naveen Chandraoman Telecommunications Deputy Commissioner Company Saog Of Income Tax/Circle Vp Finance Office, Po Box 789, Vs. International Tax Postal Code 11, Ruwi Muscat, 2(2)(2), Delhi. Sultanate Of Oman Outside India Pan-Aabco4203F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/07/2025 O R D E R Per Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm: The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Arising Out From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 25Th December, 2024 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Ast/S/147/2024-25/1071556765(1) Dated 25/12/2024 & Relates To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Coming Out From The Orders Of The Authorities Below Are That The Assesse Is Foreign Company & Had Not Filed Return Of Income For The Impugned Year. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On The Ground That Assessee Has Received Certain Payments From Two Indian Entities Namely M/S Bharti Airtel Limited & M/S Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd & Has Not Shown Any Income In India. The Assessing Officer Was Of The View That The Service Provided By The Assessee To The Indian Entities Were In The Nature Of The Fts And, Hence, Taxable In India. The Oman Telecommunications Company Saog Vs. Dcit Assessing Officer Relied Upon The Provisions Of Section 9(I)(Vii) Of The Act Held That The Service Rendered By The Assessee Are In The Nature Of Technical Services And, Hence, The Same Are Taxable In India. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Made Addition Of Rs. 11,81,52,790/. Drp Also Affirmed The View Of The Ao Vide Order Dated 4Th November, 2024. Thereafter, Ld. Ao Framed The Final Assessment Order.

Section 148Section 56Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

termination of international voice traffic services, which the assessee has provided to Vodafone. At the cost of repetition, we must observe, while framing draft assessment order, the Assessing Officer has characterized interconnectivity usage charges received by assessee as royalty income under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. However, learned

Creator Events Private Limited, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Patna

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

ITA 76/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Creator Events Pvt. Limited,…….….………Appellant H. No. 123, Vijay Nagar, Rukunpura, Bailey Road, Patna-800014, Bihar [Pan:Aafcc3700R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….Respondent Ward-2(1), Patna, Jay Prakash Bhawan, Income Tax Department, Patna-800001, Bihar

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

ITA No. 76/PAT/2025 (A.Y. 2015-2016) Creator Events Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT

Albert Joseph Rozario, Mumbai vs. ITO, Int. Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1168/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2018-19 Albert Joseph Rozario, Ito, (Int. Tax), Circle-4(1)(1), B-311, 5Th Wing, Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Inlaks Park, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Yari Road, Versova, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Andheri West, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400058 Bandra East, Pan : Afvpr6139P Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dharan Gandhi For Revenue : Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 R/W 144C(13) Of The Act Dt. 30-12-2024, Consequent To The Directions Given By The Ld. Drp-1, Mumbai-3, U/S 144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 30-11-2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay.) 2018-19. 2. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That Basis Information Available Through The Insight Portal That The Assessee Had Purchased Immoveable Properties Amounting To Rs. 8,31,45,549/- & Has Received Interest

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar G. Menon, Sr.DR

Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69

response to the show cause notice, there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. Thereafter, the AO proceeded and passed the draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) dated 21-03-2024 and brought to tax the sum of Rs. 4,47,74,410/- as un-explained investment, invoking ... income from other sources of Rs 1,03,53,786/- was also brought to tax as originally done in the draft assessment order as so confirmed by the Ld.DRP and thereafter, the income was assessed at Rs. 5,51,28,196/-. Against the said final assessment order, the assessee

Nilesh Purshottam Ghodasara, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle Int Tax 1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 297/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(15)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 92C

Ground no. 2: Draft assessment referred to the Dispute resolution panel is without jurisdiction: a. The assessing officer erred in passing the draft assessment order without appreciating the fact that since the appellant had not filed the return of income hence provisions of section 144C ... amendment was made w.e.f 01.04.2020. Therefore, reference to dispute resolution panel u/s. 144C (1) of the Act by the AO of the draft assessment order itself is without jurisdiction, uncalled for and such draft order along with reference to Dispute Resolution Panel is void-ab-initio. Hence the assessment

Ataat Rahat Khan, Gurgaon vs. DCIT/ACIT-Int-Tax Gurgaon, Gurgaon

ITA 1801/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2017-18]

Section 115BSection 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 270ASection 271Section 69

communication to the appellant. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law no draft assessment order under Section 144B of the Act was served upon the appellant and as such the order passed is without following the mandatory provisions of the Act. 6. That ... maintainable. 4.1. Resultantly, ground no.3 and 4 of the appeal are dismissed. 5. Ground No.5: In this ground the assessee submits that no draft assessment order u/s 144B of the Act was served upon the assessee and as such the order passed is without following the mandatory provisions

Pandurang Kashinath Bhilare, Pune vs. ITO, (It) Ward 1, Pune

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 198/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.198/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pandurang Kashinath Bhilare, V The Income Tax Rh 05, Insignia, Lane 2, S Department, Ito,(It) Pashan Sus Road, N.I.A.S.O., Ward-1, Pune. Murkutenagar(N.V.), Pune – 411045. Maharashtra. Pan: Ajxpb9871A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Assessee In Person Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 147Section 43CSection 56(2)(x)

A.Y.2018-19 passed on 25.12.2024 emanating from order of the Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai, dated 26.11.2024 for A.Y.2018-19 emanating Draft Assessment Order under section ITA No.198/PUN/2025 [A] 144C(1) of the Act, dated 15.03.2024. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under : “1. Learned

Green Maiden A 2013, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Tax Circle 2(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1986/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai/ Shri Hardik Nirmal/ MsFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 153Section 61Section 63

income and brought to tax as in the assessment order for the assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19. 5. The AO, vide draft assessment order dated 12/03/2024 passed under section 144C(1) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and held that the facts ... categorically referred at para 7.14 of their order that the addition to the taxable income has proposed by the assessing officer in his draft assessment order on the basis of AAR ruling itself has already been reversed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. The DRP has also stated

Amrit Pal Singh Chadha, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2794/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2794/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Amrit Pal Singh, Vs Acit, 4410, Dlf, Phase-Iv, Central Circle-19, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpc3215P Assessee By: Sh. Amar Jeet Singh, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.07.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Cit(A)-27, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1073779465(1) Dated 27.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Amar Jeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 13ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 29A

section 151. Hence, the orders under section 148A(d) and the notices under section 148 are quashed. As a corollary, the draft assessment orders under section 144B/144C cannot survive and are also quashed. 16. These writ petitions are allowed on the above terms. There will be no order

Daido India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 1(1), Gurgaon

ITA 5761/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

added to the return income of the Assessee company, following the order of the T.P.O., the draft assessment order came to be passed on 04/12/2017. 5. Aggrieved by the Draft Assessment Order, the Assessee filed objection before the DRP. The DRP issued directions to the TPO vide order dated 01/06/2018

Sachin Dwivedi, Hardoi vs. ACIT, National Faceless Appellate Centre

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

ITA 762/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 250Section 68

assessee was asked to produce the bills and vouchers for these expenses. Since, the assessee did not furnish those details, a draft assessment order was issued to the assessee, asking the assessee as to why a sum of Rs. 63,27,327/-, being 15% of such total expenses should ... fresh loan from M/s Perfect Automobiles. Since the assessee did not submit any details in support of this fresh loan, in the draft assessment order, the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the same should not be added back. In the absence of any response

Spectraforce Technologies (India) Private Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 5, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2853/PUN/2024[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri S. Raghunathan and Shri Abhiroop Bhargav KFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade

Section 143(3)Section 92C(3)

Augmentation Software Staff Augmentation Activity-EXPORT Development & Activity- Domestic Service Activity 1 5.46% 24.09% (loss) 7.19 A. The Ld. AO, while passing his draft assessment order – u/s144C(1)- at page 5- repeated the adjustment in Software Segment as follows-(Refer Page 5 of Paper Book) “Apart from above adjustment ... bound to pass the final assessment order in conformity with the directions of ld. DRP. The AO merely repeated the contents of the draft assessment order without following the specific directions of DRP. Therefore, the final assessment order passed was without jurisdiction and hence unsustainable. 7.27 A host of decisions

Mohd Younus, Hyderabad vs. ITO (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

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

ITA 329/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, Y V Bhanu Narayan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 69

treated as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act because, the assessee could not explain the source. 3. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed his objections before the Disputes Resolution Panel-1, Bengaluru and filed relevant details including date of account

Geethala Tejaswini, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 325/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

handled under the Faceless Assessment Scheme and referred to the Verification Unit for physical service of notices. A show-cause notice and a draft assessment order were issued, but the assessee did not file a response." Considering the above, the ground of denial of adequate opportunity for the appellant

Geethala Tejaswini, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 324/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Geethala Tejaswini, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 323/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Geethala Tejaswini, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 322/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Shamsu Ul Zoha Jermain, Coulsdon, United Kingdom vs. Income Tax Officer, (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1125/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148

dated 28.03.2021 was issued to the assessee. After considering the submissions filed by the assessee, the Ld. AO passed a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1) of the Act on 27.02.2023 making an addition of Rs.69,14,289/- on account of income on sale of land under the head

Samsung Sdi India Pvt Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Circle-5(2)(1), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5475/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

proposed total adjustment of INR 8,65,25,835/- to the ALP of international transactions carried out by the assessee. Thereafter, the draft assessment order was passed on 30.08.2023 wherein adjustments proposed by the TPO were added to the total income of the assessee and total income was assessed