##PAGE1##

2026:BHC-GOA:123-DB

Smt. Sharen Nitiin Naik

vs.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji and 2 Ors.

__________________________________________________

WP118 OF 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA.

WRIT PETTION NO.118 OF 2024

Smt Sharen Nitin Naik, Aged 49 Years

R/O H. No. 74, Bombi Niwas, Dando,

Damodar College Road, Margao, 403 601.

Pan: AAZPN5437B …PETITIONER

~ VERSUS ~

1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,

Panaji

Designated Authority Under The Direct Tax Vivad

Se Vishwas Act, 2020

Aayakar Bhavan, Edc Complex, Patto-Plaza, Panaji

Goa.

Email: panji.pcit@incometax.gov.in

2. The Deputy Asst. Commissioner of Income

Tax, Circle 1 Margao Goa Aayakar Bhavan, EDC

Complex, Patto-Plaza, Panaji Goa.

Email: panaji.dcit@incometax.gov.in

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Panaji, Aayakar Bhavan, EDC Complex, Patto-

Plaza, Panaji Goa. …RESPONDENT

APPEARANCES

for the Petitioner Mr. Purushottam Karpe

for the Respondent Nos.1 Ms. Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel

to 3.

Page 1 of 12

JANUARY 28th 2026

Smt. Sharen Nitiin Naik

vs.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji and 2 Ors.

__________________________________________________

WP118 OF 2024

CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &

AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.

Dated : 28th January 2026

JUDGMENT (PER AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J).

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith

3. Ms. Susan Linhares, the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

Respondents, waives service.

4. Heard finally with the consent of the Learned Counsels appearing for the

parties.

5. By the present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the 1^st Respondent. By

an order dated 17.03.2021 (the impugned order), the 1st Respondent

rejected the Petitioner’s application under the “Vivad Se Vishwas

Scheme” (the Scheme). The Petitioner challenges the impugned order

on various grounds, including that it was passed without affording an

opportunity of hearing, is arbitrary and perverse, and is contrary to the

very object of the Scheme. It is further submitted that there are no

reasons assigned to the impugned order, and the application of the

Petitioner is rejected by passing an online order, which reads:

Page 2 of 12

JANUARY 28th 2026

Smt. Sharen Nitiin Naik

vs.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji and 2 Ors.

__________________________________________________

WP118 OF 2024

Activity / Status Reason of Rejection X

17-Mar-2021 Assessee has not filed Appeal before CIT (A)

Submitted Form 1 & 2 against the order of AO. As there is no appeal

pending, hence the application filed under

17-Mar-2021

DTVSV is hereby rejected.

Date of Rejection of Form 1 & 2

close

C

l

o

6. Further it is submitted that the 1^st Respondent has failed to consider ths

e

that:- i) the Appeal filed by the Petitioner, challenging the order of

penalty, is pending and ii) the peculiar situation contemplated under

Section 5A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by which a provision

is made in respect of apportionment of income between spouses

governed by Portuguese Civil Code. Therefore, Mr. P. Karpe, the Learned

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that merely because the Petitioner

has not filed any Appeal against the Assessment Order in her individual

capacity, that does not mean that the Petitioner is not entitled to avail the

benefit of the Scheme.

6. Ms. Susan Linhares, the Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf

of the Revenue, submitted that the order passed by the 1^st Respondent

is justified because the Petitioner has not challenged the Assessment

Page 3 of 12

JANUARY 28th 2026

Smt. Sharen Nitiin Naik

vs.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji and 2 Ors.

__________________________________________________

WP118 OF 2024

Order. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot avail the benefit of the Scheme.

She relies upon the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Revenue to

oppose the present Petition, primarily on the statements therein that the

Petitioner did not file any Appeal against the Assessment Order dated

30.12.2016