Harmony Realty vs. DCIT, Circle 5, Pune

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Harmony Realty, had filed its return of income on 24.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs.65,63,520/-. The Assessing Officer passed an order u/s 143(3) on 20.12.2017 determining the total income at Rs.97,21,100/-. The order was set aside by the PCIT as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, which was served on the assessee. Due to partial compliance and subsequent non-compliance to the statutory notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and determined the total income at Rs.34,56,11,355/- by making various additions. The assessee did not respond to the statutory notices issued by the CIT(A) / NFAC, leading to the confirmation of the additions by the CIT(A) / NFAC. The assessee appealed against this order, arguing that due to the Covid situation, full details could not be filed. The assessee also claimed that notices issued by the CIT(A) / NFAC could not be seen due to a defunct email address.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details before the Assessing Officer?
• 2. Whether the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC should be upheld?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• K K Press Tools and Components Private Limited vs. The Income Tax Officer, Corp Ward-4(3), Chennai

• Shri Satabdi Developers Pvt. ltd. vs. ITO, Ward 10(2)

  Kolkata benchAY 2012-13Allowed

• Smt. Shanti Devi vs. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench ‘A’ benchAY 2019-20Allowed

• Raj Kumar Sharma vs. ITO, Ward 32 (5)

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2011-12Allowed

• Shibani Addhya

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2020-2021Allowed

• Sattamuthu Pandimurugesan vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp Ward-1(5), Madurai