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

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH ‘DB’ PANAJI BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 319/PAN/2025 (िनधा�रणवष�/AssessmentYear:2015-16) SAGAR BAHUBALI JOLAPURE INCOME TAX OFFICER SAVALI VIRGINCAR CLASSIC, WARD-1 NEAR MARUTI MANDIR, THE OFFICE OF INCOME TAX DARVOLIM, SALCETE GOA, Vs. OFFICER, WARD -1, MARGAO MARGAO-403707, GOA GOA MARGAO-403601, GOA अपीलाथ�Appellant ��यथ� Respondent Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AHNPJ9761D अपीलाथ��ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri P. K. Bansal - Adv. ��यथ��ारा/Respondentrepresented by: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR सुनवाईक�तारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 20-Aug-2026 घोषणाक�तारीख/Date of pronouncement: 13.10.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi vide dated 01st August, 2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 which inturn is arising out of Assessment Order dated 21.09.2021 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Facts in brief as borne out from the record are that the assessee failed to furnish return of income u/s.139 of the Act for the AY. 2015-16. Case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act on 28.02.2020 with the following reason :

ITA 319/PAN/2025 SAGAR BAHUBALI JOLAPURE i. The assessee made Fixed Deposit of Rs.1,00,00,000/- during the FY 2014-15 with VPK Urban Co-op Credit Society Ltd. The Source of FD was to be verified along with the Savings Bank accounts and Business income. The Assessee did not file his ROI for A.Y. 2015- 16. 3. Assessee failed to comply with the aforesaid notice. Subsequently notices u/s. 142(1) dated 05.03.2021 & 15.07.2021 were issued to the assessee to furnish the details of investments made in VPK Urban Co- operative Credit Society Ltd. and sources of the same alongwith copies of relevant Bank statements & supporting evidences. All the aforesaid notices were duly served upon the assessee but the assessee failed to respond to said notices. In view of the provisions of Section 144(1)(b) of the Act, and for the failure on the part of the assessee to furnish compliance in response to notices u/s 142(1) of the Act, ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to completethe assessment. Ld. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1.00 crore towards unexplained investment in absence of any details/supporting evidences with regard to the sources of such cash deposits in the aforesaid Cooperative Society u/s. 69 of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.7,25,000/- as attributable to the interest income on such Fixed Deposit of Rs.1.00 crore @ 7.5% per annum, thus determining the income of the assessee at Rs.1,07,25,000/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before ld.CIT(A) but remained unsuccessfully as ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to issue notice u/s.148 of the Act. Further, assessee contended that he has submitted the return of income u/s.139, however, the case of the assessee reopened on the ground that assesse has not filed the written of income and therefore the reassessment is on wrong appreciation of facts.

ITA 319/PAN/2025 SAGAR BAHUBALI JOLAPURE 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We proceed to first deal with the Ground No.4 raised by the assessee. Admittedly, the case of the assessee has been reopened on the reason that assessee has not filed the return u/s.139 of the Act as well as the assessee made Fixed Deposit of Rs.1.00 crore with VPK Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd and then source of which was to be verified along with the saving banks accounts and business income. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the Acknowledgement placed at page No.1 and Page 1A of the paper book for having filed the Income Tax Return for A.Y. 2015-16 showing gross total income at Rs.4,20,680/- along with the computation of income. In support of the contention that the reassessment was made on wrong appreciation of facts, he relied on the following decisions : i. Sagar Enterprises vs. ACIT reported in (2002 124 Taxman 641 (Gujarat) ii. Mumtax Haji Mohmad Memon Vs. ITO – Special Civil Application No.21030/2017 dated 21.03.2018 – High Court of Gujarat iii. ITO Vs. Champaklal Mathurbhai Mehta reported in (2023) 150 taxmann.com 92 (Mumbai-Trib) iv. Deepak Wadhwa Vs. ACIT – Writ Petition (Civil) No.12551/2018 dated 04.03.2021 v. Kunwar Ayub Ali Vs. ITO – ITA No.3137/Del/2018 dated 17.04.2023 5.1 On merits of the case, ld. Counsel for the assesse drew the attention of the Bench to the paper book running into 40 pages which includes the submissions made before ld.CIT(A) and the relevant documents explaining the source of alleged Fixed Deposit. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also drew the attention of the Bench to the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA

ITA 319/PAN/2025 SAGAR BAHUBALI JOLAPURE No.318/PAN/2025 order dated 13.08.2026 for A.Y. 2014-15 wherein also Notice u/s 148 is quashed, since the reopening was on wrong fact that the Assessee has not furnished return of income whereas the return of income was already furnished on 22-07-2015. 7. We have gone through the above order which is placed on record and find that on very same issue this Tribunal adjudicated the same in favour of the assessee and quashed the reassessment proceedings. Ld. Departmental Representative could not bring any adverse material on record. Apart from that, we also find that the assessee has successfully demonstrated that he has sufficient sources for investment in the FDRs. For the sake of completeness, we proceed to reproduce the finding of the Tribunal which reads as under : “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. 7. In this regard, we find that it is the claim of the assessee that return of income u/s 139 of the IT Act was furnished by the assessee on 09.06.2014 by declaring income of Rs.2,70,480/-, however, the Assessing Officer recorded a wrong finding in the assessment order that the assessee failed to file return of income u/s 139 of the IT Act and therefore was of the view that the income to the extent of Rs.27,98,123/- escaped from assessment of tax and for this reason alone the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act. In this regard, Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied on judgement passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Deepak Wadhwa vs. ACIT, Circle-31(1) passed in W.P. (C) 12551/2018 order dated 04.03.2021 wherein Hon’ble Court under identical facts quashed the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act as well as the consequential reassessment order by observing as under :- “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. 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

ITA 319/PAN/2025 SAGAR BAHUBALI JOLAPURE 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.” 8. Respectfully following the above judgement passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Deepak Wadhwa (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the reason for reopening of assessment is based on mistaken factual premises, therefore, unsustainable in law. In the instant case in hand, a report dated 22.06.2026 was filed by Sr. Authorized Representative (DR, ITAT, Panaji, Goa) wherein the details of return filed by the assessee were furnished before the Bench. Since the Department has already accepted the fact of filing of 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.” 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case & in the light of Coordinate Bench decision passed under identical facts in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2014-15, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by ld.CIT(A)&quash the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act since it was based on wrong facts and accordingly quash the consequential reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act. Thus, the Ground no.4 raised by the assessee is allowed. 9. Since we have quashed the reassessment notice as well as reassessment order by allowing ground no.4, the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee become infructuous, which need no adjudication.

ITA 319/PAN/2025 SAGAR BAHUBALI JOLAPURE