ALICE LOURDES MARTINS,CHINCHINIM V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI

ITA 39/PAN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Alice Lourdes Martins, who appealed against the ex-parte assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, and the subsequent dismissal of her appeal by the CIT(A). The original assessment was based on undisclosed income from a property transaction, which was revealed during a search operation on the 'Mario Group'. The ITAT found that both the assessment and the first appellate proceedings were conducted ex-parte without adequate representation or evidence from the appellant, leading to a decision to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 26306 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: WT(D)
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CAPT. PRADEEP ARYA LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: JAYANT VOLVOIKAR LD.
• Section: 250; 132; 153C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 5 BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 039/PAN/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Alice Lourdes Martins 404, 1st-Palvem, Chinchinim Salcete, South Goa, Goa PAN : ABKPL2128D . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr Jayant Volvoikar [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 02/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03/04/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; The captioned appeal of the assessee impugns DIN & Order 1071501808(1) dt. 23/12/2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-2, Panaji [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn arisen out of order of assessment dt. 28/12/2022 passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Act by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] anent to assessment year 2018-19 [‘AY’ hereinafter]. Alice Lourdes Martins Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA Nos.039/PAN/2025 AY: 2018-19 ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 5 2. Tersely stated facts of the case are that; the assessee is an individual filed her return of income declaring total income of ₹4,99,570/-. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried in the case of ‘Mario Group’ on 31/01/2018 wherein certain incrementing material were seized which revealed that, the assessee was paid a consideration of ₹8,62,120/- towards her 1/10 share in the immovable property known as ‘Cumbeachem Xeta’ transferred to ‘Jaydyn Hospitality’. Upon satisfaction that, said transaction was not disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee, the Ld. AO vide notice dt. 17/09/2021 initiated re- assessment proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. In the event of non-compliance and effective failure on the part of the assessee to (a) file return of income in response to aforestated notice (b) to offer satisfactory explanation about her share in the sale consideration arising on sale/transfer of immoveable property, the Ld. AO culminated the proceeding ex-parte to the best of his judgement by bringing to tax assessee’s share as long- Alice Lourdes Martins Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA Nos.039/PAN/2025 AY: 2018-19 ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 5 term capital gain accrued her and framed consequential assessment u/s 153C r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the ex-parte assessment the assessee instituted an appeal thereagainst before Ld. CIT(A), which also came to be dismissed ex-parte owning to non- prosecution and in the absence of evidences. Dissatisfied by impugned ex-parte order, the assessee came in present appeal challenging the proceedings first as violative of nature justice later on its merits. 4. Without touching grounds and merits of the case; we have heard the rival parties on a limited issue of non- prosecution & resultant ex-parte dismissal of first appeals and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused material placed on record, considered the facts in the light of settled legal position. 5. Admittedly, the appellant neither in the course of assessment proceedings represented her case with documentary evidences nor could she lay any cogent evidences in the course of first appellate proceedings to Alice Lourdes Martins Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA Nos.039/PAN/2025 AY: 2018-19 ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 5 dismantle the alleged addition. Thus, both these proceedings before the tax authorities below indeed found culminated ex-parte without appellant’s assistance and in the complete absence of cogent & credible evidences. On the other hand, the appellant failed to make out her case before both the tax authorities below that; no income or gain had indeed arisen to her or accrued to her from such immovable property transaction. The impugned proceedings since ceased without effectively determining rights & liabilities of rival parties, therefore could hardly be continued to stand. 6. We note that, while exercising jurisdiction u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) is required to state point of determination, decision thereon and reasons therefore in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. A plain reading of above section reveals that, it was incumbent upon Ld. CIT(A) to make necessary enquiries before passing an order and while doing so it necessitates to deal with each Alice Lourdes Martins Vs ACIT, Panaji ITA Nos.039/PAN/2025 AY: 2018-19 ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 5 issue/ground on merits even in ex-parte proceedings. Per contra it is found in the instant case that, in the event of non-prosecution the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal simply placing reliance on judicial precedents but without adjudicating the appeal of merits in terms of s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act. The impugned adjudication since inconsonance with above provision (supra), therefore we find no reasons in not setting-aside the impugned order at the stage of its institution for de-novo adjudication in accordance with law. We order accordingly with a direction to accord one more opportunity to the appellant to prove her case on merits. 7. The appeal in result stands allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced in the open court on date mentioned herein before. -S/d- -S/d- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji/Dt: 03rd April, 2025. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A) Concerned 4. PCIT Concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji 6. Guard File By Order, Sr. Private Secretary / AR ITAT, Panaji. "