POONAM VIJAYKUMAR TULSIANI,PANAJI-GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), PANAJI, PANAJI GOA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH “DB”, PANAJI – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.440/PAN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Poonam Vijaykumar Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Panaji. Tulsiani, AS-15, 2nd Floor, Campal Trade Centre, Behind Military Hospital, St. Inez Panaji Goa, Panaji- 403001. PAN : ADMPT4459R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri Neeraj Mangala Revenue by : Smt. Rijula Uniyal (Virtual) Date of hearing : 11.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 08.09.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.10.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1) The order passed by Hon. CIT(A) is bad in law and passed without following the principles of natural justice. 2) The Assessment Order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and sustained by the Id CIT(A) is without

2 ITA No.440/PAN/2025 jurisdiction, misconceived, bad in law and without following the principles of natural justice. 3) The Hon. CIT(A) and Id AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant has declared their income u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 4) The Hon. CIT(A) and Id AO has erred in applying provision of section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is not applicable to the case, considering the fact that all the cash deposits in the bank account has been duly explained. 5) The Hon. CIT(A) and Ld AO has erred in adding the entire cash deposit amount of Rs.96,95,266/- as undisclosed income without considering the revised statement of income and the tax paid by the appellant. 6) The Hon. CIT(A) and Id AO has erred in considering the cash deposits as undisclosed income of the assesee, inspite of the fact that the AO has accepted the income declared by the assesee under presumptive basis. 7) With these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays for relief sought for.” 3. The appellant has also raised the following additional ground of appeal :- “That the notice issued under section 148 is void ab-initio as no separate approval u/s 148 read with Ist proviso was taken from specified authority, consequently the assessment order passed is invalid and liable to be quashed. No doubt approval from PCIT, Panaji was taken while passing order u/s 148A(d) on 29/03/2022 vide reference number 100000029413972 and the same approval has been referred to in notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act while IInd proviso in section 148 requiring no separate approval in case approval from specified authority has been obtained u/s 148A(d), is inserted w.e.f 1.4.22 only.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual having income from business and other sources. The assessee has

3 ITA No.440/PAN/2025 not filed her return of income u/s 139 of the IT Act for the year under consideration. On the basis of information available with the Department that the assessee deposited huge cash of Rs.1,81,56,366/- in her bank accounts maintained with Karur Vysya Bank and ICICI Bank Ltd. and failed to furnish return of income u/s 139 of the IT Act. Consequently, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act and after following the procedure laid down in section 148A(b)/(d) of the IT Act, notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee on 29.03.2022. In response to which, assessee filed her return of income by declaring income of Rs.5,91,940/-. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act respectively were issued to the assessee. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 01.03.2023 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.1,02,87,206/- as against the income of Rs.5,91,940/- returned by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.96,95,226/- being unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A of the IT Act.

4 ITA No.440/PAN/2025 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the assessee is an individual and has regularly filed returns under the presumptive taxation provisions of section 44AD in earlier years. We further find that during the course of assessment proceedings, a revised computation was filed declaring higher gross receipts of Rs.1,56,32,318/- and offering presumptive income u/s 44AD thereon, accompanied by payment of additional tax of Rs.1,77,563/- on 20.02.2023. It is the claim of the assessee that out of total cash deposit of Rs.1,81,56,366/- noted by the Department, an amount of Rs.1,56,32,318/- was part of the business receipts already disclosed by the assessee in the revised computation of income and remaining amount of Rs.25,29,100/- deposited in the Karur Vyaya Bank

5 ITA No.440/PAN/2025 Account represented the re-deposited amount which was earlier withdrawn by the assessee. It is the contention of the assessee that the Assessing Officer has already accepted the business income declared on a presumptive basis and in the revised computation the assessee has disclosed the correct gross receipt, therefore, there was no occasion to deny the same. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of our above discussion, we find force in the argument of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the receipts of Rs.1,56,32,318/- appearing in the bank account pertains to business activity carried on by the assessee on which the assessee has already disclosed profit @ 8% u/s 44AD of the IT Act in revised computation of income. However, at the same time, we are not convinced with the argument of the assessee that the amount of Rs.25,29,100/- pertains to cash re-deposited in bank account out of earlier withdrawal. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to consider the same as business receipts and direct the Assessing Officer to determine the income of the assessee @ 8% u/s 44AD by treating the gross receipts at Rs.1,81,61,418/- (Rs.1,56,32,318 + Rs.25,29,100) which comes to Rs.14,52,913/-. Accordingly, the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set-aside and the

6 ITA No.440/PAN/2025 Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs.96,95,266/- and revise the computation of income as per our above discussion. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed. Since we have already allowed the appeal of the assessee, the additional ground raised by the assessee becomes academic, hence not adjudicated. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 08th day of September, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 08th September, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.09.10 16:23:51 +05'30' आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. DR, ITAT, Panaji. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.