Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa vs. Bagkiya Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Goa
The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in aforestated terms
ITA 148/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2017-2018 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Sf-3, Building No.-3. Techno Cidade, Chogam Rd., Alto Porvorim, Goa-403521. Pan: Aaccb9382M . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: None For The Respondent Revenue By: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Revenue’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(2) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges The Order Dt. 29/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Wheeled From The Order Dt. 25/08/2021 Passed U/S 147 Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18.[‘Ay’]
For Appellant: None for theFor Respondent: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 127(2)Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(2)
…ied upon in the light of IMs and admission/statement of other deponent. This view finds strength in the decisions of Hon’ble Courts rendered in ‘Satinder Kumar (HUF) Vs CIT’ [1976 44 CCH 29 (HP)], ‘Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala’ [1973, 91 ITR 18 (SC)], ‘Avadh Kishore Das Vs Ram Gopal’ [AIR 1979 SC 861]. Since in the present case, the facts penned in IMs and confirmed by other employees of the assessee company goes to contrary to director’s retraction, therefore such withdrawal of admission was rightly turn down by the Ld. AO. ITAT-Panaji Page 25 of 39 ACIT Vs M/s Bagkiya Construction Pvt.…
