2022:BHC-GOA:481-DB WP-500-2014 & 72-2015.DOC Niti IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NOS.500 OF 2014 & 72 OF 2015 WRIT PETITION NO.500 OF 2014 Shri Dinar Tarcar, of major age, Indian National, resident of 'Mangesh', Fr. Agnelo Road, Altinho, Panaji-Goa. …Petitioner Versus

1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, having office at First floor, Pundalik Niwas, Rua de Ourem, Panaji-Goa.

2. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range, First Floor, Pundalik Niwas, Rua de Ourem, Panaji-Goa.

3. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka (Central), Central Revenue Building Queen's Road, Bangalore – 560

001.

4. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Revenue, Central Secretariat, North Block, New Delhi – 110 001. …Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO.72 OF 2015 Mrs. Manisha Tarcar, wife of Mr. Dinar Tarcar, of major age, Indian National, resident of 'Mangesh', Fr. Agnelo Road, Altinho, Panaji-Goa. …Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(1), having office at Room No.207, First Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Panaji-Goa. …Respondents Mr. Devidas Pangam with Mr. Nikhil Vaze, Mr. Amogh Arlekar and Mr. Ajay Borkar, Advocates for the Petitioner Ms. Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

CORAM: M. S. SONAK &

R.N. LADDHA, JJ.

Reserved on : 23^rd MARCH 2022 Pronounced on : 4^th APRIL 2022 JUDGMENT : (Per M.S. Sonak, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The rule was issued in both these petitions on 23.04.2015 and interim relief was granted in terms of prayer clause 'd'. The order made in Writ Petition No.500/2014, which is identical to the order made in connected Writ Petition No.72/2015, reads as follows :

“Heard Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2. Rule.

3. Ms. Desai, learned Counsel, waives service on behalf of the Respondents.

4. The Petition challenges the notice dated 25.03.2014 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act seeking to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2010-11. The reasons in support of the impugned notice do not indicate any directions from CIT (Appeals) to issue the re-opening notice. However, the Order dated 23.07.2014 disposing of the objections relies upon the directions of the CIT (Appeals) to make Section 150 of the Income Tax Act applicable to reject the objections. Thus, prima facie, the reasons in support not referring to the directions of the CIT (Appeals), cannot support the impugned notice. Therefore, interim relief in terms of prayer (d).”

3. Though Ms. Linhares, the learned Counsel for the respondents, tried to urge that the issues involved in both these petitions may not be the same, after extensively hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that there is no substantial difference between the two matters. Therefore, we propose to dispose of both these petitions by this common judgment and order, no doubt, bearing in mind the points of distinction urged by Ms. Linhares. Writ Petition No.500/2014 will, however, be treated as the lead petition.

4. The petitioners' challenge notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) dated 25.03.2014 and 10.03.2014 which seek to reopen the completed assessment for the assessment year 2010-2011 on the alleged ground that the income chargeable to tax for the said assessment year has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the IT Act. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.72/2015 is the wife of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.500/2014. Both the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 5A of the IT Act concerning the apportionment of income between spouses governed by the Portuguese Civil Code about which, there is no dispute.

5. On 30.07.2010, the petitioner filed income tax returns for the assessment year 2010-2011. The same was processed under Section 143(1) and notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) dated 22.06.2011 were s