SAGAR BAHUBALI JOLAPURE,DARVOLIM, SALCETE GOA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, THE OFFICE OF ITO, MARGAO, GOA

आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.07.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2014-15.

2 ITA No.318/PAN/2025

“1) The order of the CIT(A) is bad in law and is void-ab-initio. 2) The Assessment Order passed by the ld AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and set-aside by the CIT(A) is without jurisdiction, misconceived and without following the principles of natural justice. 3) The order passed by the ld AO is without jurisdiction as the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, was issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) and not by the faceless assessing officer (FAO) who has passed the order. 4) The re-opening of the assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act, is bad in law, as the AO has not considered section 139 return filed by the appellant while deciding on the re-opening of the case. 5) The ld AO has erred in making addition u/s 69 of Rs.25,00,000/-, inspite of the fact that provision of section 69 is not applicable to the case. 6) The ld AO has erred in considering Rs.2,98,123/- as income from other sources without looking into the facts of the case. 7) With these and such other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing the appellant prays for relief sought for.”

3 ITA No.318/PAN/2025

Rs.5,00,000/- on 06.04.2013 and 06.05.2013 respectively with VPK Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. and has also earned interest income of Rs.2,98,123/-, however, failed to disclose above investments and income for taxation since no return has been furnished u/s 139 of the IT Act, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act dated 11.02.2020 was issued to the assessee. The assessee did not file return in response to above notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act and show cause notices respectively were issued to the assessee. The assessee did not comply with any of the above notices, therefore, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 21.09.2021 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.27,98,123/- as against no return filed by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.25,00,000/- being unexplained

4 ITA No.318/PAN/2025

investments u/s 69 of the IT Act and addition of Rs.2,98,123/- being undisclosed interest income. 4. 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 set-aside the ex-parte assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the case laws paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that it is the sole contention of the counsel of the assessee that the reopening is based on wrong facts, therefore, the reassessment proceedings and consequential reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act is bad in law.

5 ITA No.318/PAN/2025

“2. It is not in dispute that the notice dated 27.03.2018 was issued by the Revenue on account of the purported failure on the part of the petitioner-assessee to file income tax return qua Assessment Year (AY) 2011-2012.

6 ITA No.318/PAN/2025

xxxxx 3.4 Second, that, in any event, the petitioner-assessee had, contrary to what is portrayed in the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, filed the Income Tax Return (ITR) for AY 2011-2012. For this purpose, Mr. Mahana relies upon the receipts issued upon filing of the ITR, inter alia, for AY2011-2012; a copy of which is appended as Annexure P-4 on page 57 of the paper book. xxxxx 5.2. As far as the other aspect is concerned, in our view, since the proof put in place by the petitioner-assessee with regard to the acknowledgement of return filed for AY 2011-2012 has not been disputed by the Revenue, as noticed above, the challenge to the impugned notice and the impugned order will have to be sustained. 6. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to quash the impugned notice dated 27.03.2018 as also the impugned order dated 28.09.2018. It is ordered accordingly.”

7 ITA No.318/PAN/2025

return by the assessee, the reasons for reopening the case of the assessee proves to be wrong since according to the reasons, due to failure of the assessee to file the return, the case was reopened. Therefore, we find force in the argument of the counsel of the assessee and accordingly, set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and quash the reassessment notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act as well as reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act being bad in law. Thus, the ground no.4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Since we have quashed the reassessment notice as well as reassessment order by allowing ground no.4 raised by the assessee, the other grounds of appeal become infructuous, hence need not be adjudicated. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 13th day of August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji / Dated : 13th August, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.08.13 15:57:37 +05'30'

8 ITA No.318/PAN/2025

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प 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/Sr.PS ITAT, Panaji.