← 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

Ashish Ramesh Oswal, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1266/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: S/Shri Kishor B Phadke &For Respondent: S/Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT &
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

where approval under section 153D for relevant assessment year was granted by Addl. Commissioner for 43 cases on a single day without perusing draft assessment orders at all and without an independent application of mind, impugned assessment order was rightly declared to be illegal by Tribunal. 29. Referring ... 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

Deepak Kantilal Jain, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Pune

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1265/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

where approval under section 153D for relevant assessment year was granted by Addl. Commissioner for 43 cases on a single day without perusing draft assessment orders at all and without an independent application of mind, impugned assessment order was rightly declared to be illegal by Tribunal. 29. Referring ... 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

Ramanlal Bhikulal Shah, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1264/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: S/Shri Kishor B Phadke &For Respondent: S/Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT &
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

where approval under section 153D for relevant assessment year was granted by Addl. Commissioner for 43 cases on a single day without perusing draft assessment orders at all and without an independent application of mind, impugned assessment order was rightly declared to be illegal by Tribunal. 29. Referring ... 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

Ashok Bharti Goswami, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Pune

ITA 1263/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Chitra Narendra Parmar, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle 2(1), Pune

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1262/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: S/Shri Kishor B Phadke &For Respondent: S/Shri Sandeep Sengupta, CIT &
Section 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153C

where approval under section 153D for relevant assessment year was granted by Addl. Commissioner for 43 cases on a single day without perusing draft assessment orders at all and without an independent application of mind, impugned assessment order was rightly declared to be illegal by Tribunal. 29. Referring ... 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

The Garoh Co-Operative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Dharamshala, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Dharamshala

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 67/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer was not required to issue a show cause/ draft assessment order before passing the assessment order which is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has further erred in holding that

The Garoh Co-Operative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Dharamshala, Kangra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dharamshala, Dharamshala

In the result, both the above appeals are allowed

ITA 66/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer was not required to issue a show cause/ draft assessment order before passing the assessment order which is arbitrary and unjustified. 5. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has further erred in holding that

Maheshwara Reddy Venkatareddy Jonnala, Byadgi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

ITA 944/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Santosh Magavi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 147Section 40ASection 40A(3)

recording of statement u/s. 131 that it was claimed by both the parties that both are engaged in trading of red chillies. Accordingly draft assessment order was passed disallowing the above sum. 5. Further as assessee did not furnish any documentary evidences that the recipient

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Sumit Gupta, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4732/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Shri Sumit Gupta, Circle-4(2), 14, Sainik Farm, New Delhi. Khanpur, New Delhi – 110 062. Pan : Abhpg7925N Co No.15/Del/2025 (Ita No.4732/Del/2024) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Sumit Gupta, Vs. Dcit, 14, Sainik Farm, Circle-4(2), Khanpur, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 062. Pan : Abhpg7925N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar, Ca & Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 153D

before granting approval, makes the approval invalid and unsustainable in law.” 3. The ld. AR has pointed out that vide approval dated 29.12.2019, draft assessment orders in regard to several assessees covered by Brindavan group of cases search were received and approval was granted on the same day. The copy

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Tirunelveli vs. Ms.Phillips Foods India Private Limited, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 739/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 739/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 & C.O No.17/Chny/2024 [In I.T.A. No.739/Chny/2024] The Assistant Phillips Foods India Pvt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ltd., Tax, C-75/76, Sipcot Industrial Circle 1, Complex, Tirunelveli Tuticorin Central Stand S.O. Tuticorin – 628 002. Pan: Aabcp 7916Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Cit िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. K. Amulya, Ca & Shri Vinay Jain, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08.07.2025

For Appellant: Ms. K. Amulya, CA &For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 92C

tested party, upon rejecting the assessee’s TP documentational and benchmarking analysis. - 3 - ITA No,739/CHNY/2024 & CO No.17/CHNY/2024 3. Subsequently, the AO passed draft assessment order on 28.11.2019 u/s.144C(1) of the Act and the final assessment order on 05.02.2020 u/s.144C(3) of the Act after incorporation the adjustment proposed

Silverplass Holdings Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 7396/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, CIT- DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92A(2)(b)

7396/DEL/2018 [A.Y 2015-16] Silverplass Holdings Vs. ACIT 2. Grounds raised by the assessee read as under: “1:0 Draft assessment order is bad in law, non- est, invalid and void ab initio 1:1 The learned ACIT erred in passing draft assessment order under section 144C(1) read with ... section 143(3) of the Act even though no variation in the income or loss returned by the assessee is proposed in the draft assessment order. 2:0 The Ld. AO erred in denying the benefit of the lower tax rate as per the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement entered into

Yogeshkumar Harishbhai Mali, Surat vs. PCIT, Surat-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 420/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.420/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Yogeshkumar Harishbhai Mali, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ 117, Khambhati Panchni Waid Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Rustompura, Surat - 395002 Office, 123, 1Stfloor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abdpm 3296 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2025

Section 114BSection 115BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

issued on 31.03.2021 but assessee failed to furnish return u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee was issued show cause notice along with draft assessment order by the AO, in response to which the assessee furnished his submission on 19.03.2022. The AO perused the submission of assessee and found ... Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed paper book of 64 pages including the show cause notice and draft assessment order by the AO, written submission before AO and Ld. PCIT, relevant part of sale deed dated 16.08.2014, assessment orders of other co- owners

Ambabhavani Jettem, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahbubnagar

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 604/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148

said cash generated supported by 6 ITA.No.604/Hyd./2024 bills and invoices. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued one more show cause notice –cum- draft assessment order dated 11.03.2022 and called-upon the assessee to furnish relevant details, including details of cash sales and cash deposit into bank a/c along with

Mudubhagilu Krishna Murthy Divakar, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Assessing Officer, Shimoga

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 732/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Monish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 144Section 234ASection 250

year under consideration and not offered to tax. Accordingly, assessee was issued show cause notice on 22.03.2021 with a copy of the Draft Assessment Order giving an opportunity to the assessee. But there was no reply submitted by the assessee. Accordingly, the difference calculated above at Rs.6

Rane Nsk Steering Systems Pvt. Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ltu, Chennai

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

ITA 3017/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3017/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin, C.A GHFor Respondent: Shri R.Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)

question is as to which year it has been recognized as a revenue. The A.O therefore, in the draft assessment order passed u/s. 144C(1) of the Act proposed to make addition on advance of Rane NSK Steering Systems Pvt. Ltd. :- 3 -: Rs.6,28,62,959/- as income

Shahi Exports Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 8, Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 710/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 250Section 30Section 92C

vide its order dated 31.10.2019 passed u/s 92CA(1) of the Act proposed the adjustment accordingly, the draft assessment order was passed by the AO. The assessee preferred appeal against the draft assessment order before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) vide its order dated 26.03.2021 reduced the adjustments proposed

K.R.Pulp and Papers Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi

ITA 4456/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 80ISection 92C

transfer of steam from eligible unit to non-eligible unit was reduced by INR 51,63,85,174/-. Thereafter, the AO passed draft assessment order u/s 143(3)/144C of the Act on 30.03.2021 incorporating the adjustments made by TPO by disallowing the deduction u/s 80IA claimed ... therefore, the reduction proposed by the TPO was restricted to such extent by the AO in the draft assessment order. Against this draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) who vide its order dated 28.12.2021 u/s 144C(5) of the Act, confirmed the adjustments

K R Pulp and Papers Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-19, Delhi

ITA 755/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 801ASection 801A(4)(iv)Section 80ISection 92C

transfer of steam from eligible unit to non-eligible unit was reduced by INR 51,63,85,174/-. Thereafter, the AO passed draft assessment order u/s 143(3)/144C of the Act on 30.03.2021 incorporating the adjustments made by TPO by disallowing the deduction u/s 80IA claimed ... therefore, the reduction proposed by the TPO was restricted to such extent by the AO in the draft assessment order. Against this draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”) who vide its order dated 28.12.2021 u/s 144C(5) of the Act, confirmed the adjustments

Rolls-Royce India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Tp 3(2)(1), Delhi

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 252/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

liable to be quashed as time barred. The relevant para no. 4 of the order is reproduced as under: “ 4. The draft assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Act on 31.03.2021 in which transfer pricing in adjustment ... assessee filed its objection before the Id DRP. The Id DRP issued direction u/s 144C(5) of the Act on 16.09.2021 upholding the draft assessment order. The said DRP order was intimated to the Id AO on 22.09.2021. There is absolutely no dispute with regard to this fact of date

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 6, New Delhi vs. Nec Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7392/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

7392/Del/2017 M/s NEC Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. required, were produced and after thorough examination as per section 144C of the Act, draft assessment order passed on dated 21.03.2014. 4. Thereafter, assessee filed objection in Form 35A on 24-04-2014, before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) against the draft assessment