SONAL SUNIL JOLAPURE,DAVORLIM, SALCETE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, MARGAO

ORDER

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assesse has filed the return of income for A.Y.2011-12 on 17-10-2011 disclosing a total income of Rs.1,80,000/- and the return of income was processed u/sec143(1) of the Act on 11.5.2012.There was search operations u/sec132 of the Act on VPK Urban Credit Cooperative Society and certain cash transactions/ term deposits information was found in respect of the assessee in the F.Y.2010-11 and the said information was not reflected in the return of income filed for A.Y.2011-12.The Assessing officer (A.O) has reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. The assessee has filed the return of income on 31.07.2018 in lieu of notice u/sec148 of the Act. Subsequently notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec142(1) of the Act are issued. In compliance, the Ld.AR of the assesse and assessee father appeared from time to time and submitted the information and details. The assessee was provided reasons recorded for reopening of assessment on 31.08.2018 and also to explain the source of cash deposits in the VPK Urban Credit Cooperative Society in the F.Y.2010-11. Further the A.O has issued notice u/sec133(6) of the Act on the VPK Urban Credit Cooperative Society to provide details of transactions of the assessee. The society has submitted details of cash deposits and interest on term deposits for the F.Y.2010-11. Further a show cause notice was issued on 5.10.2018 to give suitable explanations referred at Para5.7 of the order. The A.O find that instead of Sonal Sunil Jolapure. submitting the explanations and after providing the reasons for reopening of assessment on 31.08.2018 and the assessee father and the AR of the asssesse were heard on 6.09.2018 in the assessment proceedings. Whereas the assessee filed a letter dated 10.10.2018 along with the vakalatnama of Advocate referred at Para6.1 of the order denying of making any deposits in the society and also the earlier AR submissions are without her knowledge and requested the earlier AR to withdraw the authorisation given earlier.

Sonal Sunil Jolapure. 5 We heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record, Ld. AR submitted that CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the order of the Assessing Officer on the validity of notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Ld. AR contentions are that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was not initiated in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the assessee was not the same person on whom the notice was issued. Whereas the Assessing Officer has considered the facts and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of search operations u/s 132 of the Act. VPK urban Credit Cooperative Society were certain transactions of cash and term deposits were found in respect of the assessee for F.Y. 2010-11 and were not reflected in the assessee return of income. The Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s 148 of the Act and in compliance the Ld. AR of the assessee and father of the assessee appears from time to time and submitted the information. The assessee was provided reasons for reopening of the assessment and to explain the sources of cash deposits. The assessee was issued show cause notice and the assessee’s father and Ld.AR attended the proceeding and explained the availability of funds. Subsequently, the assessee contentions are that the assessee has not given any power of attorney to the assessee’s AR and the submission made by the AR are without knowledge of the assessee. The contentions raised that the assessee is not the same person on whom the notice was issued. Further the statement of the senior manager of VPK urban Credit Cooperative Society was recorded. Where the assessee specimen signature in the society is signed as Sonal Sunil jain and whereas it is written in KYC as Sonal Sunil Jolapura. Further the assessee was Sonal Sunil Jolapure. provided cross-examination of the senior manager who has collected deposits from assessee residence in FY 2010-11. The assessee counsel and her father requested that the cross examination should be done in the case of his son Shri Sagar bahubali jolapure whose case for AY 2011-12 is also scrutinized for the same reasons and the same may be treated in respect of Sonal Jolapura(daughter) and SangeetaJolapura (wife) Therefore, the facts mentioned that the assessee is known as Sonal Sunil Jolapura alias sonal Bahubali Jolapure and by two names and further the assessee has failed to explain the source of deposits.

by the assessee pertains to issue notice u/s 143(2) of the Act where the department substantiated that notice was issued on the same name. As per the submissions of the department in respect of CD and the statement recorded in the CD along with the names of family members where the father name is Sagar jain and also the family is known as jains. Whereas the PAN No. referred in the CD pertains to the assessee and now the assessee state that the Sonal Sunil Jain is not the same person. The assessee also filed the copy of passport of the assessee’s father as per the passport details the assessee’s father is also known as Bahubali Sukumar alias Sunil Sukumar whereas the passport of the assessee was not provided and as per the aadhar card, the assessee name is Sonal Sunil Jolapura and similarly, PAN No. is also Sonal Sunil Jolapurai and it is clear that the assessee is known as Sonal Sunil Jain. Further the list of documents produced in the course of hearing of both the parties appeared that the deposits are Sonal Sunil Jolapure. made in the old name of the assessee. The ld. AR contentions are that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued without recording the reasons. whereas the department has substantiated with evidence that the reasons were properly recorded and the revenue has substantiated voluminous information that the reasons are recorded prior to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and also in respect of assessee’s name as Sonal Sunil Jain.It was also submitted that the assessee and Sonal Sunil Jolapure on whose name notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and whose name deposits are there belong to different persons, but prima facie the statement was recorded in respect of the society manager and it was mentioned that the assessee identity till 2014 was Jain and the manager also confirms that the surname Jolapura has come into existence after collecting KYC documents of the family. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee identification details and the notice issued are on the same person. We therefore considering the facts, circumstances and evidences do not find merits in the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and we are inclined to uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the assessee

7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (GD PADMAHSHALI) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji Dated: 02/04/2026 Sonal Sunil Jolapure. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant, 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar)ITAT, Panaji Initial Date 1. Draft dictated on PS 2. Draft placed before author PS