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’]

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have held the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and bad in law in terms of section 147

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

147 regarding assessment or reassessment of the escaped income, he would keep on making roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income not connected or related ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 8 Sunil Hanmantsa Naikwad Vs ITO ITA No.220/PAN/2024 AY:2012-13 with the reasons to believe, on the basis of which he assumed jurisdiction. For every new issue

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

reassessment", when no reason is provided. From the above mentioned facts it is clear that there is no mistake on part of Assessing Officer for reopening of the case. Therefore, the "OBJECTION FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT" for consideration of taxing the income by revoking section 147 is hereby dismissed. Further to state that the dismissal of revoking section

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

reassessment", when no reason is provided. From the above mentioned facts it is clear that there is no mistake on part of Assessing Officer for reopening of the case. Therefore, the "OBJECTION FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT" for consideration of taxing the income by revoking section 147 is hereby dismissed. Further to state that the dismissal of revoking section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

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

reassessment by issue of notice u/s 148 and consequential assessment u/s 147 of the Act completed wherein a solitary addition of 30% of total payments made to karigars (artisan labours) during the year was made. 3.3 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 4.9 to 4.12 which reads

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

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

reassessment by issue of notice u/s 148 and consequential assessment u/s 147 of the Act completed wherein a solitary addition of 30% of total payments made to karigars (artisan labours) during the year was made. 3.3 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 4.9 to 4.12 which reads

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

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

reassessment by issue of notice u/s 148 and consequential assessment u/s 147 of the Act completed wherein a solitary addition of 30% of total payments made to karigars (artisan labours) during the year was made. 3.3 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 4.9 to 4.12 which reads

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

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

reassessment by issue of notice u/s 148 and consequential assessment u/s 147 of the Act completed wherein a solitary addition of 30% of total payments made to karigars (artisan labours) during the year was made. 3.3 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 4.9 to 4.12 which reads

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI vs. M/S POTDAR BROTHERS, BELAGAVI

Appeals of the Revenue are PARTLY ALLOWED for statistical purposes in aforestated terms

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

reassessment by issue of notice u/s 148 and consequential assessment u/s 147 of the Act completed wherein a solitary addition of 30% of total payments made to karigars (artisan labours) during the year was made. 3.3 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal u/s 246A of the Act before first appellate authority which was allowed vide para 4.9 to 4.12 which reads

MARIA ESTIBEIRO,PANAJI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), PANAJI

The appeal stands ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Maria Estibeiro L/H Of Jacintodas Estibeiro 781, St. Marys Colony, Miramar, Goa. Pan:Aabpe2798N . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Vimalraj Periyagounden [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 25/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By This Appeal Captioned Appellant Impugns Din & Order No. 1060336601(1) Dt. 31/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2012- 13 [‘Ay’].

reassessment order; High Court observes that legal heirs received the notice under section 142(1) but no fresh valid notice u/s 148 was issued to them; High Court further observes that the notice to the deceased Assessee is invalid from its inception as ITAT-Panaji Page 19 of 28 Maria Estibeiro L/H of Jacintodas Estibeiro Vs DCIT, Panaji

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)

1) of section 142 or 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

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 of 254(1

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

147 of the Act. Pursuant to 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

M/S TERECOM (P) LTD.,GOA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1), PANAJI., PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

147 of the Act after making addition on account of provisions for bad and doubtful debts for book profits for the purpose of computing the tax liability u/s 115JB of the Act rejecting the contention of the appellant that 3 the same was not required to be added back to the book profits as the said provision was reduced from

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’]

1(A) of 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

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)

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, the assesse has filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 25.07.2017 2 ITA. No. 216/PAN 2025. Ramappa Lachappa Sidapur. disclosing a total income of Rs.7,91,080/-. The assessing officer

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

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2014-15 Bardc Bank Bhatkal Next To Bsnl Tower, Bhatkal, Uttara Kannada. Pan:Aaaap1731G . . . . . . . Appellant

Section 144 of the Act and framed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act whereby Ld. AO denied the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act and thus assessed the total income of ₹1,84,26,8597 /-. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 6 BARDC Bank Bhatkal Vs NFeAC ITA No.295/PAN/2024, AY: 2014-15 3. Aggrieved

KUNDARNAD JANATA SHIKSHAN SANGH ANKALGI,ANKALGI GOKAK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GOKAK

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos.57/Pan/2025 (A.Y.2018-19 ) Kundarnad Janta Shikshan Vs National E – Sangh Ankalgi, Assessment Centre, . Ankalgi, Gokak, Delhi-110001 Belgaum-591101, Karnataka. Pan .No.Aadtk0333K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

1,17,19,424/- and assessed the total income of Rs.1,18,66,334/- and passed the order u/sec 147 r.w.s144B of the Act dated 23.02.2024. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assesse has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings

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

section 292BB was outside the purview of ld. CIT(A) in giving effect to the Tribunal order in the second round. Since the only issue was about considering whether notice u/s.143(2) was issued within the stipulated period and it has been abundantly seen that such notice was issued beyond the period as prescribed in the statute, we are satisfied