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

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’]

3) of 133A of the Act and were confronted to the assessee before proceedings thereon. ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 39 ACIT Vs M/s Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 148/PAN/2025 AY: 2017-18 3.3 Based on such impounded survey material, statements recorded in the course of such survey under s/s (5) of section 133A, s/s 1(A) of section

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’].

3) of section 159 of the Act is treated as ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 28 Maria Estibeiro L/H of Jacintodas Estibeiro Vs DCIT, Panaji Goa ITA No.034/PAN/2024 AY:2012-13 assessee. Now comes who is the LR against whom any proceedings in terms of clause (b) of s/s (2) of section 159 of the Act can be initiated when

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

3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess

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

3 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 called upon the assessee to state the ‘reason or reasons behind such exorbitant & inordinate delay of 3433 days and explain as to how such reason or reasons forms ‘sufficiency cause’ & how such cause prevented the assessee in filing appeals

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

3 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 called upon the assessee to state the ‘reason or reasons behind such exorbitant & inordinate delay of 3433 days and explain as to how such reason or reasons forms ‘sufficiency cause’ & how such cause prevented the assessee in filing appeals

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

3 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 called upon the assessee to state the ‘reason or reasons behind such exorbitant & inordinate delay of 3433 days and explain as to how such reason or reasons forms ‘sufficiency cause’ & how such cause prevented the assessee in filing appeals

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

3 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 called upon the assessee to state the ‘reason or reasons behind such exorbitant & inordinate delay of 3433 days and explain as to how such reason or reasons forms ‘sufficiency cause’ & how such cause prevented the assessee in filing appeals

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

3 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 called upon the assessee to state the ‘reason or reasons behind such exorbitant & inordinate delay of 3433 days and explain as to how such reason or reasons forms ‘sufficiency cause’ & how such cause prevented the assessee in filing appeals

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

3 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 called upon the assessee to state the ‘reason or reasons behind such exorbitant & inordinate delay of 3433 days and explain as to how such reason or reasons forms ‘sufficiency cause’ & how such cause prevented the assessee in filing appeals

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

3 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 called upon the assessee to state the ‘reason or reasons behind such exorbitant & inordinate delay of 3433 days and explain as to how such reason or reasons forms ‘sufficiency cause’ & how such cause prevented the assessee in filing appeals

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

3 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 called upon the assessee to state the ‘reason or reasons behind such exorbitant & inordinate delay of 3433 days and explain as to how such reason or reasons forms ‘sufficiency cause’ & how such cause prevented the assessee in filing appeals

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

3 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 called upon the assessee to state the ‘reason or reasons behind such exorbitant & inordinate delay of 3433 days and explain as to how such reason or reasons forms ‘sufficiency cause’ & how such cause prevented the assessee in filing appeals

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

3 of 22 Neha Prasanna Ghotage Vs ACIT, Belgaum ITA No. 259 to 268/PAN/2025 AY: 2006-07 to 2010-11 called upon the assessee to state the ‘reason or reasons behind such exorbitant & inordinate delay of 3433 days and explain as to how such reason or reasons forms ‘sufficiency cause’ & how such cause prevented the assessee in filing appeals

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(3

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 147 / 148 of the Act is concerned.’ (Emphasis supplied) ITAT-Panaji Page 15 of 16 Moureen Camara Vs NFeAC ITA Nos.200/PAN/2023 AY: 2016-17 17. As solidified from the records by the Revenue there was no notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act to the appellant assessee separately, in the event the reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction, hence

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

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

reassess such income ‘and also’ any other income chargeable to tax which comes to his notice subsequently during the proceedings as having escaped assessment. These words ‘and also’ used in ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 8 Sunil Hanmantsa Naikwad Vs ITO ITA No.220/PAN/2024 AY:2012-13 section