“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

Amplus Energy Solutions Pte Ltd, Malaysia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), Civic Center, Delhi

ITA 3370/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 194L

provides a lower tax rate only in the context of rupee denominated ‘bonds' and not rupee denominated ‘debentures'. Consequently, a draft assessment order under section 144C was issued proposing to tax the interest income of INR 34,73,79,589 earned on NCDs @ 10% instead of 5.46% (including applicable surcharge ... cess) as per section ii5A(i)(a)(BA)(ii) read with section 194LD. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the Appellant preferred to file its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Further, by way of application dated 16 March 2023, the Appellant also raised an additional objection before

Amplus Energy Solutions Pte Ltd, Singapore vs. The Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

ITA 2417/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Amplus Energy Solutions Pte Vs Acit, Ltd., Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), #02-00, Robinson Road, New Delhi. Singapore – 688898 Pan: Aadci8182P Assessment Year: 2021-22 Amplus Energy Solutions Pte Vs. Acit, Ltd., Malaysia, Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), Level 56, Tower-1, Petronas New Delhi. Twin Towers, Kuala Lumpur City Centre, 50088, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia/ 6Th Floor, Emaar Mgf, The Palm Square, Golf Course Ext. Road, Sector-66, Gurgaon – 122 102. Pan: Aadci8182P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate & Ms Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 115A(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 194LSection 3

provides a lower tax rate only in the context of rupee denominated ‘bonds’ and not rupee denominated ‘debentures’. Consequently, a draft assessment order under section 144C was issued proposing to tax the interest income of INR 34,73,79,589 earned on NCDs @ 10% instead of 5.46% (including applicable surcharge ... cess) as per section ii5A(i)(a)(BA)(ii) read with section 194LD. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the Appellant preferred to file its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). Further, by way of application dated 16 March 2023, the Appellant also raised an additional objection before

Fil India Business & Research Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), C.R Building, Delhi

The appeal of the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 1948/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 920Section 92CSection 92C(3)

Rs.1,53,73,858/- to the value of the International Transaction entered into by the assessee. Thereafter, the AO has passed a draft assessment order u/s 144C of the Act wherein the AO has proposed the additions towards the adjustments done by TPO in international transaction at Rs.1 ... further proposed disallowance on delayed payment of employees contribution of PF and ESI of Rs.50,484/-. 3. Aggrieved by the draft assessment order, the assessee filed objections before the ld. DRP, who though confirmed the action of the TPO, however direct the TPO to verify the contention raised

Pradeep Heda, Udaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-2, Udaipur

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 916/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 153ASection 153DSection 43CSection 44ASection 69A

granting approval. Hence, the granting of approval cannot be said to be mechanical when there is clear noting about going through the draft assessment order (DFA) by the Additional Commissioner in the letter granting the approval. Thus, he rejected the legal ground by stating that the approval u/s 153D ... Addl. CIT requesting for approval u/s 153D in the case of the assessee, it can be seen that the draft assessment orders were sent for approval on 22/04/2021 and admittedly, the Addl. CIT granted approval on 23/04/2021 i.e. within one day [CIT(A) order page14 para 2.7 PB page

Sunita Heda, Udaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-2, Udaipur

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 915/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, HonʼBlepradeep Heda, 1A, Babel Ki Bari, Govind Nagar, Sector No.-13, Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aaiph2617J Sunita Heda 1A, Babel Ki Bari, Govind Nagar, Sector No.-13, Udaipur- 313001. Pan No. Aamph3169D Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Α.Μ.:

Section 115BSection 153ASection 153DSection 43CSection 44ASection 69A

Pradeep Heda, Udaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT Central Circle-1, Udaipur-2, Udaipur

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 904/JODH/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 153ASection 153DSection 43CSection 44ASection 69A

Pradeep Heda, Udaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-2, Udaipur

Appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 903/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Section 115BSection 153ASection 153DSection 43CSection 44ASection 69A

Arpana Jha, Bettiah vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Bettiah

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

ITA 135/PAT/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 135/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Arpana Jha,……………….……….………..………Appellant C/O. Namo Nath Jha, Banuchhapar, Sant Kabir Road, Near K.P.M. School, Bihar-845438 [Pan:Ahmpj6389G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………….…....Respondent Ward-1(5), Bettiah Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: June 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

Show Cause Notice on 26.03.2022 with a compliance date as on 29.03.2022 to make submission if any and propose the amendments in the draft assessment order, however the assessee 3 Arpana Jha made no response to Show Cause Notice, hence the assessment order completed based on the facts and circumstances

Dinessh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward4(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1393/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shivangi Chopra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Gujarat)/[2023] 293 Taxman 192 (Gujarat)[06-02-2023] (copy annexed as Annexure-23) Where Assessing Officer issued show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order directing assessee to comply with same within time of 12 hours and later, passed assessment order making additions, there was gross violation of principles

Ntt India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt Comm. of Income Tax-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2491/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanntt India Private Vs. Assessment Unit/Nfac/Dcit Limited Circle 15(1)(2), 1701-1704, B Wing, One Mumbai Bkc, Level 17, G-Block, Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. C-65, Bandra Mumbai. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aaacd2145G (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271ASection 92C

made to the total income of the assessee, accordingly the total income was assessed at Rs. 214,94,01,690/-. 6. Accordingly, draft assessment order u/s 144C of the Act was passed on 30.03.2021. The assessee preferred the 4 NTT India Private Limited objections before

Dic Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1966/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 153Section 69Section 69A

NFAC grossly erred in making erroneous addition of Rs.8,04,08,359/- u/s 69A of the Act which neither formed part of the draft assessment order issued u/s 144C(1) dated 14.09.2023 nor the directions issued by the Ld. DRP in as much as no reasons were ... seen on page 30 of the Ld. AO’s order), the Ld. AR vehemently argued that the Ld.AO in the Draft Assessment Order passed u/s 144C(1) of the Act, dated 14.09.2023, had only proposed an adjustment on account of transfer pricing issue. It was argued that there

Haneda Trading and Construction Sdn Bhn, West Malaysia vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2073/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1072 & 2073/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Haneda Trading & The Deputy Commissioner Construction Sdn Bhd, Vs. Of Income Tax, Suite 10-01 Subang Square, Circle 1(2), Corporate Tower, Chennai. 47500, Jalan Ss, 15/4G, Subang Jaya Selangor, West Malaysia Pan: Aagch 2363G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 144(1)(a)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

same is beyond time as per Section 144C(12) of the Act (i.e., 9 months from the end of the month in which draft assessment order was forwarded). In the instant case, the DRP ought to have issued the directions on or ITA No.1072 & 2073/CHNY/2024 before 31.12.2022 however, has mentioned ... first adjudicate the legal issue raised in Grounds Nos.5 to 8 in ITA No.1072/CHNY/2024. In this context, it is to be mentioned that draft assessment order was passed in terms of Section 144C(1) of the Act on 29.03.2022 (received by the assessee company on 30.03.2022), proposing to make

Haneda Trading and Construction Sdn Bhd, West Malaysia vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1072/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 144(1)(a)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

Braj Kishore Singh, Andheri East vs. Assessing Officer Int. Tax Ward 4(2)(1), International Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1011/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanbraj Kishore Singh Vs. Assessing Officer 604, Lantana, Nahar Amrit Internatinal Tax Ward Shakti, Chandivali, 4(2)91) Maharashtra -400 072. Room No. 632, Kautilya Bhavan, Pan: Bqips8474H C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

Section 142(1)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Indexed cost of acquisition 1024/711*36,77,020 Rs. 52,95,736 Long term capital gain Rs.17,04,264 4. In the draft assessment order, the AO concluded that the assessee has failed to furnish inaccurate particulars to conceal the income of Rs. 17,04,264/-, hence AO recommended ... chapter 29,602 Braj Kishore Singh VIA as per statement Total income 16,92,486 Rounded off to 16,92,490 5. The draft assessment order framed u/s 144C(1) of the Act was forwarded to the assessee to exercise his option as provided in section 144C

Hansa Jitendra Haria, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263Section 69A

transactions in GLOBAL SECUR script, which were furnished, by the assessee. The Show cause notice was issued on 24th March 2022 along with draft assessment order proposing to made addition of Rs. 5,28,540/- being sale proceeds of long- term shares GLOBAL SECUR as unexplained cash credit

Ashirwad Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle, Pune

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

ITA 190/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Raja B. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 2(15)

respect of non-disposal of objections by the Ld. AO, lack of opportunity given to him of being heard and non furnishing of draft assessment order u/s 144B(1)(xvi) of the Act. The Ld. AO has clearly mentioned all the facts in his assessment order and details regarding ... disposal of objections by the Ld. AO, lack of opportunity given to him of being heard to the assessee and non- furnishing of draft assessment order u/s 144B of the Act. In our humble view, we find this observation of the Ld. CIT(A) cryptic and not valid

Iqbal Ali Jaweed, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 448/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 10(34)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

448/Hyd./2024 added to the income assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.43,03,950/- vide Draft Assessment Order dated 30.05.2023 passed u/sec.144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Aggrieved by the Draft Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer ... Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The assessee had filed objections before the DRP and the learned DRP on identical circumstances, upheld the Draft Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer. 7. In pursuance to the Directions of the DRP, the Assessing Officer has passed the Final Assessment Orders both dated

Iqbal Ali Jaweed, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 447/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 10(34)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Ajay Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 972/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT-DR)

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)

which case, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed as there were no subject matter which was appealable neither from the draft assessment order nor was a subject matter of objections before the Hon'ble DRP. The ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the grounds challenging the levy of interest

Shri Basavraj Shivappa Bhate, Belagavi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

ITA 47/PAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr BS Balachandran [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Satish M [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 253(1)

High Court in ‘Nikhil Chandrakant Dharia Vs ITO’ [2024, 469 ITR 262]. 12. Further in a case where a show cause notice- cum-draft assessment order was replied by written submission accompanying therewith a request for personal hearing before passing final assessment order. The order of assessment however was passed ... Hire Purchase (P.) Ltd. Vs NFAC’ [2021, 128 taxmann.com 190 (Del)] wherein Revenue contended that assessee’s reply to show cause notice-cum-draft assessment order was considered, hence the outcome would have been same even if AO had granted a personal hearing. The Hon’ble Court rejected the Revenue