22002255::BBHHCC--GGOOAA::22006644--DDBB

Suzana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO.444 OF 2024

Prabhakar Nerulkar,

49 years, residing at House No.

208, Near Hanuman Temple,

Verem, Bardez, Goa.

PAN:ABNPN9388G … Petitioner

Versus

1. Principal Commissioner of

Income Tax, Panaji, having

office at Aaykar Bhavan, Plot

No. 5, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa - 403001

2. National Faceless Assessment

Centre, Delhi, having office at

2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi - 110003

3. Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Panaji, having office at

Aaykar Bhavan, Plot No. 5, EDC

Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji,

Goa-403011

4. The Union of India, Through

the Secretary, Ministry

Finance, Government India, North Block,

New Delhi -110 011 … Respondents.

Mr Dharan Gandhi, Advocate with Ms Shweta Parulekar,

Advocate for the Petitioner.

Ms Susan Linhares, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms Swati

Kamat Wagh, Standing Counsel for Respondents No.1 to 3.

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &

ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.

DATED : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2025.

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

1. The Petitioner, an individual engaged in real estate business and in turn indulging in purchase of plots, its development and sale thereafter, is assessed to income tax. The activity of purchase and sale of plots constitutes his ‘business activity’.

2. Upto the Assessment Year 2010-2011, the Petitioner regularly filed Income Tax Returns. However, thereafter, according to the Petitioner, despite submitting his books of accounts to the Tax Consultant, the Returns were not filed and the Petitioner was not aware about the same as he was under the belief that the Tax Returns are regularly filed.

The Petitioner, therefore, did not file Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2011-2012 to 2016-2017 and thereafter, he engaged a new Tax Consultant who advised him that as the time limit to file the Returns for the previous years had expired, he should avail the opportunity to make disclosure under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 (IDS, 2016).

Accordingly, the Petitioner offered his income from his real estate business under the said Scheme and as per Section 5(A) of the Act, half of the income was offered to tax by the wife of the Petitioner, namely, Mrs Madhuri Prabhakar Nerulkar, and the couple adopted for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act, which gave an option to the Assessee to offer his income from business @8% of the gross receipt or higher sum to tax, this option being available, subject to conditions subscribed in the Scheme including upper threshold of turnover.

3. Being eligible under Section 44AD, a special provision for computing profits and gains of business on presumptive basis, the Petitioner along with his wife offered their income from real estate business to tax in the following manner for the following Assessment Years:

Assessment Year Income offered by the Petitioner and his wife

2011-12 1,84,921/- 2012-13 2,01,778/- 2013-14 5,20,787/- 2014-15 1,96,183/- 2015-16 2,65,721/- Total 13,69,390/-

4. A declaration was also furnished by the Petitioners to the effect that the amount of undisclosed income offered under IDS was credited to the bank account and the details of the account were also offered. The above declaration was duly accepted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, i.e. Respondent No.1 and this resulted in issuance of Form No.IV in form of Certificate of Declaration under Section 183 of the Finance Act, 2016 under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 (IDS).

This Certificate clearly refer to the Declaration issued in Form-II and the income was shown to be from “business”.

5. According to the Petitioner, for the Assessment Year 2014-15, the Income Tax Officer, Panaji, issued a Notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021 and further two Notices under Section 142(1) were issued on 08.10.2021 and 25.11.2021. As the Tax Consultant of the Petitioner passed away during Covid, the Petitioner did not reply to these Notices. Similar Notices were issued fo