“final assessment order”

Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Sneh Sharma, Delhi

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

supposed to first issue a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act, but, instead the AO has proceeded to pass a final assessment order directly and this jurisdictional infirmity has been adjudicated by the ld.CIT(A) by the impugned order by quashing the assessment proceedings and holding that

Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), New Delhi, Delhi vs. Sneh Sharma, Delhi

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

supposed to first issue a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act, but, instead the AO has proceeded to pass a final assessment order directly and this jurisdictional infirmity has been adjudicated by the ld.CIT(A) by the impugned order by quashing the assessment proceedings and holding that

Income Tax Officer, Ward-29(1) Delhi, Delhi vs. Sneh Sharma, Delhi

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

supposed to first issue a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act, but, instead the AO has proceeded to pass a final assessment order directly and this jurisdictional infirmity has been adjudicated by the ld.CIT(A) by the impugned order by quashing the assessment proceedings and holding that

Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), New Delhi vs. Sneh Sharma, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

supposed to first issue a draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act, but, instead the AO has proceeded to pass a final assessment order directly and this jurisdictional infirmity has been adjudicated by the ld.CIT(A) by the impugned order by quashing the assessment proceedings and holding that

Innovative Textiles Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Innovative Textiles Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 10(1), 81, Vighyan Vihar, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Aaaci0473J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Order : 24.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2022 Passed By The Income Tax Department/National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13)/144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Orders Of The Learned Lower Tax Authorities Is/Are Contrary To The Law & Facts Of The Case.

Income - tax Act, 1961 as no show cause notice being draft assessment order was served on the appellant before making the final assessment order. 3. That the learned Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) /lower tax authorities had contrary to law and facts of the case, without any proper basis ... Income - tax Act, 1961 as no show cause notice being draft assessment order was served on the appellant before making the final assessment order; b. That the addition of Rs.84,95,443 being TP adjustment with reference to international transaction of purchase of cotton of Rs.27,14,55,905 from

Avon Containners Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

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

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

147/143(3) without appreciating that objection filed in response to reasons recorded were never disposed off by a speaking order before passing the final assessment order, which has invalidated the entire proceedings, since objections should be disposed off point wise properly as directed by Apex Court in GKN Driveshafts reported

Manoj Kumar Singh, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmamanoj Kumar Singh, S-17, Ground Floor, Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi - 110 017. Pan: Aaxps2824H Vs Dcit, Central Circle-28, Delhi.

Assessed income u/s 143(3) of Rs. 14,75,572/-) 51,43,45,110/- 51,58,20,682/- 3. Copies of the final assessment orders should be forwarded to this office immediately after passing the orders. Proposal for retention of seized material should also be forwarded to this office within

Akansha Garg, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Tax-1(3)(1), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Akansha Garg, Vs. Acit, 313/36, C-1, Inderlok, Circle Int. Tax-1(3)(1), New Delhi-110035 New Delhi-110002

Hearing 20/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the Final Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Intl. Tax-1(3)(1), dated 06/01/2025 ... Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. In consequent to the directions of the DRP, the A.O. passed the Final Assessment Order on 06.01.2025 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the 2 AkanshaGarg Act. Aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order on 06.01.2025, the Assessee preferred the present appeal. 3. During

Pioneer India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

30th January, 2013. Further, it was submitted that the draft assessment order was passed on 25th March, 2013 and the final assessment order on 25th May, 2013. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. TPO had to pass the order in accordance with the provisions of section 92CA

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Newbury Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Newbury Holding Ltd. mandatory for the AO to pass draft assessment orders. As the Assessing Officer has not passed draft assessment orders, the final assessment orders passed by the AO deserves to be set aside. The ld. AR by relying on the plethora of judicial precedents sought for dismissal appeal ... High Courts and Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal have laid down the ratio that having failed to pass assessment orders, the final assessment orders passed by the AO stands vitiated for failure to adhere to mandatory requirement of passing of the draft assessment order in terms of section 144C

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Newbury Holding Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Newbury Holding Ltd. mandatory for the AO to pass draft assessment orders. As the Assessing Officer has not passed draft assessment orders, the final assessment orders passed by the AO deserves to be set aside. The ld. AR by relying on the plethora of judicial precedents sought for dismissal appeal ... High Courts and Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal have laid down the ratio that having failed to pass assessment orders, the final assessment orders passed by the AO stands vitiated for failure to adhere to mandatory requirement of passing of the draft assessment order in terms of section 144C

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Eicr (Cyprus) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

EICR (Cyprus) Ltd. mandatory for the AO to pass draft assessment orders. As the Assessing Officer has not passed draft assessment orders, the final assessment orders passed by the AO deserves to be set aside. The ld. AR by relying on the plethora of judicial precedents sought for dismissal appeal ... High Courts and Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal have laid down the ratio that having failed to pass assessment orders, the final assessment orders passed by the AO stands vitiated for failure to adhere to mandatory requirement of passing of the draft assessment order in terms of section 144C

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Eicr (Cyprus) Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

mandatory for the AO to pass draft assessment orders. As the Assessing Officer has not passed draft assessment orders, the final assessment orders passed by the AO deserves to be set aside. The ld. AR by relying on the plethora of judicial precedents sought for dismissal appeal. 10. We have ... High Courts and Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal have laid down the ratio that having failed to pass assessment orders, the final assessment orders passed by the AO stands vitiated for failure to adhere to mandatory requirement of passing of the draft assessment order in terms of section 144C

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Bennett Williamson Engineers Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

mandatory for the AO to pass draft assessment orders. As the Assessing Officer has not passed draft assessment orders, the final assessment orders passed by the AO deserves to be set aside. The ld. AR by relying on the plethora of judicial precedents sought for dismissal of the ground Nos.2 ... High Courts and Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal have laid down the ratio that having failed to pass assessment orders, the final assessment orders passed by the AO stands vitiated for failure to adhere to mandatory requirement of passing of the draft assessment order in terms of section 144C

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Bennett Williamson Engineers Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

mandatory for the AO to pass draft assessment orders. As the Assessing Officer has not passed draft assessment orders, the final assessment orders passed by the AO deserves to be set aside. The ld. AR by relying on the plethora of judicial precedents sought for dismissal of the ground ... High Courts and Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal have laid down the ratio that having failed to pass assessment orders, the final assessment orders passed by the AO stands vitiated for failure to adhere to mandatory requirement of passing of the draft assessment order in terms of section 144C