1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

TAX APPEAL NOS.31, 32, 33, 34, 35 & 36 OF 2017

Mrs. Natalina Vaz,

Age 47 years, Indian National,

Residing at Bunglow No. 4,

Models Meridien,

Marine Road, Caranzalem,

Ilhas, Goa.

PAN NO. AAYPV2385F

Versus

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax,

Central Circle, Bangalore.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of

Income Tax, Central Circle,

Panaji, Goa.

3. The Principle Commissioner of

Income, Panaji, Goa.

... Appellant.

... Respondents.

WITH

TAX APPEAL NOS.37, 38, 39, 40, 41 & 42 OF 2017

Mrs. Vanda Afonso

Age 48 years, Indian National,

Residing at H. No. E- 374,

Tivai Waddo, Calangute

Bardez, Goa.

PAN NO. ABOPA3000B

Versus

1. The Commissioner of Income Tax,

Central Circle, Bangalore.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of

Income Tax, Central Circle,

Panaji, Goa.

... Appellant.

2

3. The Principle Commissioner of

Income, Panaji, Goa.

... Respondents.

Mr. P. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. Sanghavi, and Mr. H. D.

Naik, Advocates for the Appellants-Assessees.

Ms. S. Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Respondents-Revenue.

Coram:- M. S. SONAK &

SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ.

Reserved on:- 31

st

March 2021

Pronounced on : 5^th April 2021

JUDGMENT ( Per M. S. Sonak, J)

Today, we have disposed of the companion appeals being Tax

Appeal Nos. 19 of 2017 to 30 of 2017, which were instituted by the

spouses of the Appellants/assessees.

2.

The action of the Revenue against the present Appellants/

assesses was based upon the assessment made against their spouses by

resort to the provisions of Section 153C of the IT Act. Now that we have

set aside the impugned judgment and order in the connected appeals

instituted by the spouses, based on the same reasoning, the impugned

judgments and orders in these matters will also have to be set aside and

the matters will have to be remanded to the ITAT for fresh disposal of

the appeals. In fact, the ITAT had disposed of the revenue’

s appeals

against the present appellants/assesses and their spouses by a common

judgment and order.

3

3.

Mr. Pardiwala, learned Senior Advocate for the assessees,

pointed out that in the present case yet another issue which goes to the

root of the jurisdiction arises and the same will have to be considered by

the ITAT irrespective of whether or not any cross-objections were filed

by the Appellants/assessees or not.

4.

Mr. Pardiwala submits that the action, in this case, has been

taken by resort to the provisions of Section 154 of the IT Act concerning

the rectification of mistake. He submits that in the present matters there

was no order made by the Assessing Officer assessing returns of income

filed by the Appellants/assessees. He submits that the powers under

Section 154 can only be exercised to rectify the mistake apparent from

the records in any order made under the provisions of the IT Act or to

amend any intimation or deemed intimation referred to in clauses (b),

(c) and (d) of Section 154(1) of the IT Act. He submits that in the

absence of any order or intimation, no powers under Section 154 could

at all have been exercised by the Revenue.

5.

Mr. Pardiwala submits that even if it is held that very

acceptance of returns filed by the Appellants/assessees is to be treated as

some kind of order then, the bar of limitation provided under Section

154(7) will be attracted. He submits that the rectification orders have

been made way beyond the period of four years from the date of such

alleged orders and therefore, the same are ex facie barred.

6.

The record indicates that these issues were sought to be

4

raised by the Appellants/assessees by filing cross-objections before the

ITAT. However, the ITAT had refused to condone the delay of 248 days

in filing the cross-objections and therefore these contentions were not

even considered by the ITAT.

7.

By following the reasoning in the companion appeals, we

hold that the Appellants/assessees did not have to file any cross-

objections to raise the afore