Luft Technocast Limited vs. The ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Luft Technocast Limited, did not file its Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. A notice under section 142(1) was issued to the assessee to file its Return of Income due to cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The assessee failed to respond to the notices and filed a Return of Income on 10.06.2019, which was treated as non-est by the Assessing Officer since it was filed beyond the due date under section 139 of the Act. The Assessing Officer found total credit entries of Rs.3,99,23,401/- in the bank accounts of the assessee and added the entire amount as the total income of the assessee and demanded tax thereon. The assessee filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) but failed to appear before the Appellate Authority, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in treating the income tax return filed in response to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act as non-est.
• 2. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in framing the assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that details/explanation called for, were duly submitted during the course of assessment proceeding.
• 3. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in not considering the reply filed in response to the Show-Cause Notice stating that the appellant company failed to respond the SCN and in not granting an opportunity of being heard despite the fact that the specific request was made for the same, in the response filed against SCN.
• 4. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 3,99,23,400/- under section 69A of the Act despite the fact that detailed bank book and cash book was submitted during the course of assessment proceeding explaining each and every credit.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Yogender Kumar Sharma vs. Income Tax Officer, Ghaziabad

  Delhi bench

• YEDDULA VENKATA NARAYANA REDDY vs. ITO

  Bangalore bench

• Mukesh Kumar vs. ITO, Sonipat, Haryana

  Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi benchAY 2012-13, 2014-15, 2013-14Allowed

• Keshavlal Chaturdas Patel vs. ITO

  Ahmedabad bench

• M/s Unity Invrcl JV Vs. CIT(A), NFAC, JAO-Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

  Mumbai bench

• CRS Infrastructure Ltd vs ITO Ward-6(1)

  Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi benchAY 2016-17Allowed