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.

reassessment had an effect of increase in returned income or reduction in retuned loss or otherwise underpayment of taxes is detected, and in view of section 5A

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 notice is bad in law and the assessment is a nullity. The above submission does not find support from Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein section SA reads as under: 5A

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 notice is bad in law and the assessment is a nullity. The above submission does not find support from Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein section SA reads as under: 5A

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’].

section 5A of the Act were applicable. ITAT-Panaji Page 7 of 28 Maria Estibeiro L/H of Jacintodas Estibeiro Vs DCIT, Panaji Goa ITA No.034/PAN/2024 AY:2012-13 The assessee Mr Jacintodas Estibeiro died on 9. 29/04/2011. In view thereof no return of his income was filed since AY 2011-12. The latest return filed by the deceased assessee

LUDOMILA ANTONIO M PEREIRA,THIVIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), PANAJI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.427 & 428/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Ludomila Antonio M Income Tax Officer, Ward- Pereira 2(2), Panaji. Hn 134/3, Deus Cadeau, Vs. Auchit Waddo, Thivim, Bardez, Goa (Pan: Abapl7447B) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

5A of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5.9. Before him the submissions made were reiterated. While dealing with the issue in hand, Ld. CIT(A) in para 8 agreed with the contention of the assessee to hold that section 56(2)(ix) was not present in the statute book and, therefore, no addition

LUDOMILA ANTONIO M PEREIRA,THIVIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), PANAJI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.427 & 428/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Ludomila Antonio M Income Tax Officer, Ward- Pereira 2(2), Panaji. Hn 134/3, Deus Cadeau, Vs. Auchit Waddo, Thivim, Bardez, Goa (Pan: Abapl7447B) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

5A of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5.9. Before him the submissions made were reiterated. While dealing with the issue in hand, Ld. CIT(A) in para 8 agreed with the contention of the assessee to hold that section 56(2)(ix) was not present in the statute book and, therefore, no addition

IGNATIUS J PEREIRA,THIVIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), PANAJI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.427 & 428/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Ludomila Antonio M Income Tax Officer, Ward- Pereira 2(2), Panaji. Hn 134/3, Deus Cadeau, Vs. Auchit Waddo, Thivim, Bardez, Goa (Pan: Abapl7447B) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

5A of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5.9. Before him the submissions made were reiterated. While dealing with the issue in hand, Ld. CIT(A) in para 8 agreed with the contention of the assessee to hold that section 56(2)(ix) was not present in the statute book and, therefore, no addition

IGNATIUS J PEREIRA,THIVIM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2), PANAJI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.427 & 428/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Ludomila Antonio M Income Tax Officer, Ward- Pereira 2(2), Panaji. Hn 134/3, Deus Cadeau, Vs. Auchit Waddo, Thivim, Bardez, Goa (Pan: Abapl7447B) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

5A of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5.9. Before him the submissions made were reiterated. While dealing with the issue in hand, Ld. CIT(A) in para 8 agreed with the contention of the assessee to hold that section 56(2)(ix) was not present in the statute book and, therefore, no addition