MOUREEN CAMARA,PANAJI vs. ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 200/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Moureen Camara Lonic Apartment, 1St Floor, Albamar Road, Tiswadi, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Abmpc9038M . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Panaji. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr D E Robinson [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057640303(1) Dt. 02/11/2023 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Stemmed From Assessment Order Dt. 20/09/2021 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S.

section 143(2) of the Act before finalising the order of reassessment. A reassessment order cannot be passed without compliance

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

2) by the eligible assessee. (14A) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any assessment or reassessment order

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

2) of section 249 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 10. Alike in former cases, opportunities provided to showcase ‘sufficient cause’ behind such belated filings in these cases also went futile as no evidence and explanations were filed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

2) of section 249 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 10. Alike in former cases, opportunities provided to showcase ‘sufficient cause’ behind such belated filings in these cases also went futile as no evidence and explanations were filed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

2) of section 249 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 10. Alike in former cases, opportunities provided to showcase ‘sufficient cause’ behind such belated filings in these cases also went futile as no evidence and explanations were filed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

2) of section 249 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 10. Alike in former cases, opportunities provided to showcase ‘sufficient cause’ behind such belated filings in these cases also went futile as no evidence and explanations were filed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

2) of section 249 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 10. Alike in former cases, opportunities provided to showcase ‘sufficient cause’ behind such belated filings in these cases also went futile as no evidence and explanations were filed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

2) of section 249 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 10. Alike in former cases, opportunities provided to showcase ‘sufficient cause’ behind such belated filings in these cases also went futile as no evidence and explanations were filed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

2) of section 249 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 10. Alike in former cases, opportunities provided to showcase ‘sufficient cause’ behind such belated filings in these cases also went futile as no evidence and explanations were filed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

2) of section 249 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 10. Alike in former cases, opportunities provided to showcase ‘sufficient cause’ behind such belated filings in these cases also went futile as no evidence and explanations were filed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BELAGAVI

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

2) of section 249 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 10. Alike in former cases, opportunities provided to showcase ‘sufficient cause’ behind such belated filings in these cases also went futile as no evidence and explanations were filed

SMT NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE,BELAGAVI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, KARWAR

Appeals are DISMISSED

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

2) of section 249 of the Act. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 10. Alike in former cases, opportunities provided to showcase ‘sufficient cause’ behind such belated filings in these cases also went futile as no evidence and explanations were filed

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

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

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

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’]

reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and bad in law in terms of section 147 to 151 of the Act. 2

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

reassessment of escaped income, and which he intends to taken into accounts, he would be required to issue a fresh notice under Section 148.’ (Emphasis supplied) 10. In the instant case, admittedly the Ld. AO neither made any addition in relation recorded reasons about share transactions undertaken by the appellant on MCX and nor established any nexus there between

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

section 263 and by order dt. 19/04/2024 set-aside the former order for fresh assessment for Ld. AO’s failure to conduct inquiry. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 13 Sonali Mahendra Naik Gaunekar Vs ITO ITA No.: 313/PAN/2025 AY: 2016-17 3. Pursuant to revisionary direction of Ld. PCIT, the Ld. AO conducted the inquiries and by considering

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

2. The sole dispute in the present appeal orbits around solitary question ‘as to whether application of provisions of section 5A of the Act is automatic or voluntary? And whether such application confined merely to returned income? 3. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that; 3.1 the assessee an individual was identified as non-filer. Upon receipt of information

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