M/S KAMAT REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS,,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PANAJI., PANAJI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

section 147 of I.T. Act. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of I.T. Act by the Assessing Officer were valid, although nothing had been recorded by the Assessing Officer in the reasons about any failure on the part of the Appellant

BARDC BANK,BHATKAL vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.294/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) Bardc Bank Bhatkal, Vs National E – Pld Bank, Main Road, Assessment Centre . Uttara Kannada, Delhi-110001 Bhatkal S.O. Karnataka-581320. Pan .No. Aaaap1731G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

section 148 or to disclose fully 5 ITA. No. 294/PAN/2024 BARDC Bank. and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year” 6. Further we found that the A.O has issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 for reopening of assessment. Whereas the original assessment was completed u/sec 143(3) of the Act vide order

SHREE MALLIKARJUN SHIPPING PRIVATE LIMITED,VASCO vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

reassessment proceedings u/sec147 of the Act, the Ld.AR contentions are that notice was issued after expiry of 4 years, we find that the assessment was completed under section 143

GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI., SELECT CITY

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13), on the basis of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel(DRP). 15. We may gainfully refer to the provision of section 263 in this regard. "263. (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of 11 ITA.No.205/PAN./2019 any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that

MR. CARMO VASCO JACINTO FURTADO,MARGAO vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MARGAO

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.21/Pan/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Carmo Vasco Jacinto Furtado, Vs. Ito, C/O. Shyam J. Kamat, International Taxation, 17/A, Ist Floor, Shriji Complex, Margao Near Hotel Manoshanti, Dr. Gama Pinto Road, Panaji, Goa– 403 001 Pan : Aaqpf6921P Appellant Respondent

143(2) provides that notice under the section can be served within six months from the end of the relevant financial year in which the return is furnished. Such a period of six months expired on 30-09-2012. The AO issued notice after such time period on 11-10-2012. The Tribunal, in its order in the first round

MRS. MARIA NITA FURTADO,MARGAO vs. ITO, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MARGAO

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.21/Pan/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Carmo Vasco Jacinto Furtado, Vs. Ito, C/O. Shyam J. Kamat, International Taxation, 17/A, Ist Floor, Shriji Complex, Margao Near Hotel Manoshanti, Dr. Gama Pinto Road, Panaji, Goa– 403 001 Pan : Aaqpf6921P Appellant Respondent

143(2) provides that notice under the section can be served within six months from the end of the relevant financial year in which the return is furnished. Such a period of six months expired on 30-09-2012. The AO issued notice after such time period on 11-10-2012. The Tribunal, in its order in the first round

M/S CHOWGULE AND COMPANY (SALT) PVT. LTD,MORMUGAO vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of aforesaid observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 390/Pan/2017 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S Chowgule & Company (Salt) Pvt Ltd., Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour, Goa – 403803. Pan: Aabcc 5595 J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Ms Hiral Sejpal Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull Am; The Present Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Panaji-1 [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 09/10/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Tousled Out Of Order Of Assessment Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle-2, Margoa [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 27/07/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-2013. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 23

143(2) of the Act. By issue of further notices dt. 05/05/2014 & 21/05/2014 u/s 142(1) of the Act, the information in the form of questionnaire as regards to expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income earned, claim of depreciation @80% on diesel generation treating as “energy saving device” and leave encashment ITAT-Panaji Page 7 of 23 M/s Chowgule

MR. NAGRAJ GOPALKRISHNA,PHATTEPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1[5], BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

143[2] in Reassessment Proceedings which is mandatory and which is not curable mistake. Hence, Order Passed by the Income-Tax Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner [Appeals] is Bad-in-Law requires to be quashed. 2] The Learned Commissioner [Appeals] is not justified in treating Rs. 17,76,144 on account of excess Stock and Cash found in Survey

SUNIL HANAMANT NAIKWAD,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, BELAGAVI

The appeal is ALLOWED as above

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Sunil Hanmantsa Naikwad 1156, Saraf Galli, Shahapur, Belgaum Pan:Abeph0397N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent

143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act wherein a solitary addition towards unexplained income of ₹2.67Lakhs was made on assessee’s failure to explain nature & source of cash deposits made by him into his bank account maintained with Union Bank. The aforestated addition & the assessment unsuccessfully was agitated by the assessee in an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI, GOA vs. BAGKIYA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, GOA

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in aforestated terms

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’]

section 131 of the Act, the case of the assessee by an order dt. 26/02/2021 issued u/s 127(2) of the Act was centralised and vide notice dt. 28/03/2021 issued u/s 148 of the Act the reassessment proceedings were initiated calling upon the assessee to file return in response thereto within 30 days therefrom. The assessee filed a return

SONALI MAHENDRA NAIK GAUNEKAR,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

reassessment order dt 24/09/2021 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act which was set-aside u/s 263 of the Act. Whereas Ground No 1 & 2 alleges violation of principle of natural justice and hence seeks to turn down the impugned order as irregular. Since the ground no 3 is not within bounds

SALGAOCAR MINING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD,PANAJI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2006-2007 M/S Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd. Salgaonkar Bhava, Altino, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan: Aabcs8862N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Sukhsagar Syal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/01/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Impugns The Order Dt. 20/03/2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Dealt With Order Dt. 20/12/2011 Passed U/S 144 Of The Act By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2006-07.[‘Ay’]

143(3) of the Act vide order dt. 28/03/2016 was completed assessing the total income in variation to the income returned at ₹120,50,75,226/-. By rectification order dt. 12/12/2009 the assessed total income rectified to ₹120,38,98,944/- u/s 154 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 16 M/s Salgaocar Mining Industries Pvt Ltd. Vs DCIT

JENNY ELTON VALES,DONA PAULA vs. ITO, WARD - 5, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

143(1) is not an assessment, it is only the intimation of processing of the return of income filed. Clause III of your letter: I object to the reassessment. It is very vague statement, "I object to the reassessment", when no reason is provided. From the above mentioned facts it is clear that there is no mistake on part

JENNY ELTON VALES,DONA PAULA vs. ITO, WARD - 5, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

143(1) is not an assessment, it is only the intimation of processing of the return of income filed. Clause III of your letter: I object to the reassessment. It is very vague statement, "I object to the reassessment", when no reason is provided. From the above mentioned facts it is clear that there is no mistake on part

NANU RESORTS PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1., MARGAO

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.393 & 394/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06 Nanu Resorts Pvt. Acit, Circle-1, Ltd. Margao Nanu House, Varde Vs. Valaulikar Road, Margao- Goa Pan: Aaacn 7114 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Panaji-1, Panaji In Ita Nos.305 & 306/Mrg/2014-15 Dated 02.07.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao-Goa U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 25.10.2011 For Both A.Y. 2004-05 & A.Y. 2005-06. 2. The Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Common Which Relates To Treatment Of Expenditure Incurred By The Assessee For Replacement Of Assets & Renovation As Revenue Or Capital In Nature. For Ay 2004-05, The Quantum Of Expenditure In Dispute Is Of Rs. 10,81,672/- & For Ay 2005-06 It Is Rs. 2,06,379/-. A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005-06 3. Before Us, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Represented The Department.

143(3) of the Act on 11.12.2006 on assessed income of Rs. 94,64,838/-. Subsequently, Ld. AO noted income escaping assessment and invoked the provision of Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act, for which notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 22.03.2011. In the course of reassessment

NANU RESORTS PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1., MARGAO

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.393 & 394/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06 Nanu Resorts Pvt. Acit, Circle-1, Ltd. Margao Nanu House, Varde Vs. Valaulikar Road, Margao- Goa Pan: Aaacn 7114 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Panaji-1, Panaji In Ita Nos.305 & 306/Mrg/2014-15 Dated 02.07.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Dcit, Circle-1, Margao-Goa U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 25.10.2011 For Both A.Y. 2004-05 & A.Y. 2005-06. 2. The Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Common Which Relates To Treatment Of Expenditure Incurred By The Assessee For Replacement Of Assets & Renovation As Revenue Or Capital In Nature. For Ay 2004-05, The Quantum Of Expenditure In Dispute Is Of Rs. 10,81,672/- & For Ay 2005-06 It Is Rs. 2,06,379/-. A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2005-06 3. Before Us, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Represented The Department.

143(3) of the Act on 11.12.2006 on assessed income of Rs. 94,64,838/-. Subsequently, Ld. AO noted income escaping assessment and invoked the provision of Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act, for which notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 22.03.2011. In the course of reassessment

M/S SANKAMTAL HOTEL PRIVATE LTD.,BELAGAVI vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 2 (1), BELAGAVI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Sankamtal Hotel Acit, Circle-1, Pvt. Ltd. Belagavi S. Parthasarathi, Advocate, 3/1, Pranava Vs. Complex, 5Th Cross, Malleswaram, Bangalore- 560 003. Pan: Aadcs 5106 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Smt. Pratibha R., Advocate Respondent By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), -Belagavi In Ita No.51/Bgm/2016-17 Dated 25.02.2018 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-2(1), Belagavi U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 14.03.2016 For A.Y. 2008-09. 2. There Is A Delay Of Five Days In Filing The Present Appeal For Which The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Affidavit Are Placed On Record. From The Affidavit, We Note That The Assessee Was Out Of Station When The Appeal Memo Was Sent To Him By The Counsel For Its Signature & Therefore A Short Delay Of 5 Days Occurred. Considering The Petition & In The Interest Of Justice & Fair Play, We Find It Proper To Admit The Appeal & Proceed To Adjudicate Thereon.

143(3) of the Act was completed on 24.12.2010. Subsequently, the case was reopened by invoking the 3 M/s Sankamtal Hotel Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2008-09 provision of Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act, for which the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 31.03.2015. In response to the said notice, return was filed

RAMAPPA LACHAPPA SIDDAPUR,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 216/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2017-18) Ramappa Lachappa Siddapur, Vs I T O Ward(1), Dr Siddapur R L , B A -3, The Dr Ghogeri Building, . One Lotus County Apartment, Belgaum Road, Mandoli Road, Gokak-591307, Tilakwadi, Belagavi-590006, Karnataka. Karnataka. Pan .No. Apxps8802C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

143(3) r.w.s147 and u/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) on validity of re assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act and sustaining the addition u/sec 69 of the Act made by the Assessing Officer. 2. The brief facts of the case are that

MR. AGNELO SOCORRO JOAQUIM VIEGAS,PANAJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5), PANAJI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 069/Pan/2025 & Sa 06/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Agnelo Socorro Joaquim Viegas H. No. 373, Galliwaddo, Taleigao, Caranzalem, Goa-403002. Pan : Akapv9049C . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Vinesh Pikale [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Sanket Deshmukh[‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 21/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1073026397(1) Dt. 07/02/2025 Passed By Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeals(2), Ahmedabad [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Sprung Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 27/12/2018 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By The Income

reassessment notice the appellant filed his return declaring income of ₹1,53,590/- and claimed that the said income was offered on presumptive taxation basis. The said return was subjected to scrutiny and the appellant was called upon to adduce documentary evidence in support of his claim of carrying business in terms of section 44AD