RICHA ROSY D'SOUZA,MARGAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, MARGAO
Facts
The assessees filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) for AY 2013-14 & 2014-15, which arose from reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Their primary grievance was the non-consideration of written submissions and evidence by the first appellate authority regarding cash deposits claimed as conversion of foreign exchange income. The appeals were filed with a significant delay, which the tribunal later condoned.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It held that the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to produce relevant evidence before the CIT(A), thereby violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the sustained impugned addition was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing the appellant three effective hearings to produce all relevant evidence.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay in filing appeals; Violation of natural justice due to non-consideration of evidence by CIT(A); Adjudication of cash deposits claimed as converted foreign exchange income.
Sections Cited
253(1), 250, 143(3), 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, GOA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Sr ITA No Assessment Year Appellant Respondent PAN 1 110/PAN/2024 2013-14 Mrs Richa Rosy D'Souza Income Tax Officer, L/R of Late Mr Geffrey Ward-1 (Intl. Txn), ACQPJ2374Q Stephen D'Souza Panaji, Goa 2 111/PAN/2024 2014-15
3 112/PAN/2024 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Mrs Richa Rosy D'Souza AHJPD4115F Ward-2, Madgao, Goa 4 113/PAN/2024 2014-15
Appearances Assessee by: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 02/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 03/07/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; The captioned bunch of appeals of different assessee’s
filed u/s 253(1) of the Act of the Income-tax Act, 1961
[‘the Act’] challenges respective separate orders
passed by The Commission of Income Tax Appeals-1,
Panaji Goa [‘Ld. CIT(A), Goa’] u/s 250 of the Act
involving twin assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15
[‘AY’] which emanated respectively from separate
orders passed u/s 143(3)/143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act.
ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 6
D’Souza Group Vs ITO ITA No. 110 to 113/PAN/2024 AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 2. The primary grievance in the present appeals revolves around non consideration of written submission & evidences placed in appellate proceedings before the first appellate authority.
Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical and since arising out of a common search, on rival party’s request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed-off by this common & consolidated order.
In adjudicating these matters together, the first appeal listed at Sr No 1 viz; ITA No. 110/PAN/2024 is taken as lead case, resultantly our adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining appeals listed at Sr. No 2 to 4.
The appeals listed at Sr. No 1 to 2 and Sr. No 3 to 4 filed with a delay of 1645 days & 1576 days ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 6
D’Souza Group Vs ITO ITA No. 110 to 113/PAN/2024 AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively. The reasons behind belated filing is explained through affidavit dt. 23/04/2024. After vouching facts & circumstances concerning delay, affidavit and medical reports etc., and the reasons & their sufficiency, we are satisfied that the delay in filing appeals was accidental & undeliberate. We therefore of the view that for sufficient cause appellant was prevented from filing appeals within statutory period. As these cases falls within the parameter set by Hon’ble Courts in ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)], we therefore after placing reliance on former judicial precedents, in the larger interest of justice have condoned the said delay and advanced to adjudicate limited issue of violation of principle of natural justice. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 6
D’Souza Group Vs ITO ITA No. 110 to 113/PAN/2024 AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 6. Without touching merits of additions, we have heard rival party’s common submissions on the ground concerning non-considering the evidential material placed before Ld. CIT(A) and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused material placed on record and considered facts in the light of settled position of law, which are forewarned to the parties for their rebuttal.
ITA No. 110/PAN/2024 7. As we note that, as against the order of assessment dt. 05/02/2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the deceased assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-12, Bangalore [‘Ld. CIT(A), Bengaluru’] on 08/03/2016. In response to notices issued in first appellate proceedings the deceased assessee through its representative made written submissions physically vide letter dt. 14/06/2017 and further through registered post vide ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 6
D’Souza Group Vs ITO ITA No. 110 to 113/PAN/2024 AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 letter dt. 31/12/2016 & 04/0/2018. These replies were made accompany therewith evidences in support of claim that the cash deposits into bank accounts were solely out of conversion of foreign exchange income brought to India on his home visit, thus representing capital/asset and not income. The proceedings on the request of the deceased assessee was transferred to the Ld. CIT(A), Goa, however all previous submission made before Ld. CIT(A), Bengaluru remained to be part of transferred records. Therefore at the time of passing by the impugned order dt. 29/08/2019 the Ld. CIT(A), Goa had no occasion to vouch those missing submissions. Thus the impugned addition sustained in first appeal is devoid of verification & adjudication. In view thereof the Revenue could hardly object the appellant’s request for setting-aside impugned addition for a limited purpose of verification. ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 6
D’Souza Group Vs ITO ITA No. 110 to 113/PAN/2024 AY : 2013-14 & 2014-15 8. Placing reliance on ‘St. Paul’s Anglo Indian
Education Society’ [2003, 262 ITR 377 (Pat)]’, we are
of the view that, the impugned adjudication is unjust
as the deceased assessee/appellant was deprived of
reasonable opportunity to produce all relevant
evidences to establish that cash deposits were made
out of conversion of forex money bought on home visit
to India. In view thereof, we set-aside the sustained
impugned addition for its remand with a direction to
adjudicate the same in accordance with law after
according three effective hearings to the appellant.
The grounds, stands allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In result, these appeals stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in aforestated terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced in the open court on date mentioned hereinbefore.
-S/d- -S/d- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji/Dt: 03th July 2025. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)/NFAC Concerned 4. PCIT Concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Panaji Bench, Goa 6. Guard File By Order, Sr. Private Secretary / AR ITAT, Panaji. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 6
