Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji
Rajesh Suhas Verenkar,Porvorim, Goa vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 24 March, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA
BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 018 to 024/PAN/2026
Assessment Year : 2013-14 to 2019-20
Rajesh Suhas Verenkar
Flat NO. G-2, Shiv Hsg Society,
Kadamba Depot Rd.,
Porvorim, Bardez, Mapusa, Goa-403501
PAN:AGQPV5854M . . . . . . . Appellant
V/s
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent
&
ITA No. 025 to 030 & 052/PAN/2026
Assessment Year : 2013-14 to 2019-20
Riya Rajesh Verenkar
Flat NO. G-2, Shiv Hsg Society,
Kadamba Depot Rd.,
Porvorim, Bardez, Mapusa, Goa-403501
PAN:AGQPV5853N . . . . . . . Appellant
V/s
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent
Appearances
Assessee by : Mr Sham Kamat ['Ld. DR']
Revenue by : Mr Jeetendra Kumar ['Ld. DR']
Date of conclusive Hearing : 18/03/2026
Date of Pronouncement : 24/03/2026
ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 11
Rajesh Verenkar & Riya Verenkar Vs ACIT
ITA No.018 to 030 & 052/PAN/2026
ORDER
PER BENCH (10:4);
The instant bunch of appeals of captioned two assessee's are directed against respective separate orders all dt 23/11/2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['the Act'] by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals- 2, Panaji, Goa ['Ld. CIT(A)'] which in turn dealt with respective orders of assessment passed u/s 153A/153C of the Act by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa ['Ld. AO'] in relation to assessment years 2013-14 to 2019-20 ['AYs']
2. Since facts involved in these appeals and issue dealt therein are common, identical & interwoven, on rival party's request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed of by this common & consolidated order. The ITA No. 018/PAN/2025 is taken as lead case, therefore our adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining appeals. ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 11
Rajesh Verenkar & Riya Verenkar Vs ACIT ITA No.018 to 030 & 052/PAN/2026
3. Tersely stated facts of lead case are that;
3.1 The assessee engaged in the business of civil construction such as development of roads etc., and also engaged as labour contractors, as agent/broker in processing land allotment application for Communidade in the state of Goa. The assessee and spouse 'Riya Verenkar' both are governed by the provisions of section 5A of the Act.
3.2 The assessee filed his return of income u/s 139(4) of the Act on 26/03/2015 declaring ₹2,97,078/-. A search & seizure action on the assessee was carried out on 19/03/2019 wherein a statement of the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act in evince of certain incriminating material/documents seized was recorded.
3.3 Pursuant to such search action vide notice dt. 01/02/2021 case of the assessee was subjected to reassessment u/s 153A of the Act. From the seized incriminating material r.w. statements of the assessee ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 11 Rajesh Verenkar & Riya Verenkar Vs ACIT ITA No.018 to 030 & 052/PAN/2026 recorded in the course of search it was revealed to the Ld. AO that, out of the total receipt or gross income earned, on an average 50% to 55% of such receipts/income were credited / deposited in his bank accounts and leaving balance amount out of books for personal expenditure or for deposits either into his spouse's bank account or alternatively daughter's bank account. The assessee confirmed the said observations when confronted by the Ld. AO. In the event of assessee's effective failure to explain as to why such balance sum of business receipts/income not been credited/deposited into his bank & offered for taxation in accordance with section 5A of the Act, the Ld. AO culminated the proceedings by bringing to tax 50% of such suppression of business income of ₹1,01,18,642/- as the income of the assessee and framed the assessment with an addition of ₹50,59,321/- and assessed the total income accordingly u/s 153A of the Act vide order dt. 30/03/2022.
ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 11
Rajesh Verenkar & Riya Verenkar Vs ACIT ITA No.018 to 030 & 052/PAN/2026
4. Insofar as the ITA No. 019 to 022/PAN/2026 are concerned, a similar addition along-with other additions were also made, and the assessments vide order dt. 30/03/2022 were completed u/s 153A of the Act. And in insofar as the ITA No. 023 & 024/PAN/2026 are concerned the assessments vide order dt. 30/03/2022 were completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 144/144 of the Act.
5. Insofar as the ITA No 025 to 030 & 52/PAN/2026 are concerned, the assessment for corresponding assessment years in this case of the assessee in view of the provisions of section 5A of the Act, were initiated u/s 153C of the Act and balance 50% additions the additions were made while framing the farmer assessments.
6. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, these twin assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) with separate appeals in each case filed u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act. In the first appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) in each of these cases issued as many as six notices viz; notice ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 11 Rajesh Verenkar & Riya Verenkar Vs ACIT ITA No.018 to 030 & 052/PAN/2026 dt. 28/11/2024, 06/12/2024, 08/05/2025, 04/07/2025, 11/07/2025 & 23/07/2025. In response to second & forth notice the Ld. AR appeared & sought adjournment which were granted. In the event of assessee's effective failure adduce material to prove their cases on merits and effective responses, the Ld. CIT(A) proceeded ex-parte on the basis of material available on record and countenanced the action of Ld. AO thus confirmed the addition & the assessment by separate orders as captioned hereinbefore.
7. Further aggrieved, these twin assessees have come in present bunch of appeals against each of the impugned orders passed u/s 250 of the Act on as many as sixteen common grounds which are not in consonance with rule 8 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 hence the reproduction thereof deem it unfit. However, it shall suffice to state that these assessees alleges that the ex-parte dismissal was without opportunity & consideration of material. ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 11
Rajesh Verenkar & Riya Verenkar Vs ACIT ITA No.018 to 030 & 052/PAN/2026
8. Without touching merits & grounds, we have heard the rival party's common submission and subject to rule 18 (supra) perused paper book placed on record and we note that, in the course of first appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) issued six common dated notices to these twin assessee one after another mostly according less than fifteen 'minimum/reasonable' days to respond. We also note that, in these cases, the former six notices in each case were issued for very same day thus called upon both the appellants to represent their all seven cases on a common day. In the event of failure on the part of these appellants to respond former notices, the appeals were dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) ex-parte reiterating the observation of the Ld. AO. This adjudications in our considered view lacked reasonable & real opportunity and we say so by placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in 'St. Paul's Anglo Indian Education Society' [2003, 262 ITR 377 (Pat)] ITAT-Panaji Page 7 of 11 Rajesh Verenkar & Riya Verenkar Vs ACIT ITA No.018 to 030 & 052/PAN/2026
9. A cursory look into former notices also reveals that approximately seven days were allowed to each of these appellants to comply therewith. This period in our considered opinion is not a reasonable, because the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable, and effective, the same should not be for namesake, it should not be a mere paper opportunity. This is so held in 'CIT Vs Panna Devi Saraogi' [1970, 78 ITR 728 (Cal.)]. In the case of 'Smt. Ritu Devi v. CIT' [2004, 141 Taxman 559 (Mad)], time of just few days was given to the assessee to furnish reply which was also held as denial of real opportunity. As held in 'E. Vittal Vs Appropriate Authority' [1996, 221 ITR 760 (AP)], where a decision is based upon a findings/document, an affected party should be accorded a reasonable period to negate, otherwise, it would be violative of principles of natural justice. The empty formality is nothing less than denial of reasonable opportunity which de-facto renders the action/order void.
ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 11
Rajesh Verenkar & Riya Verenkar Vs ACIT ITA No.018 to 030 & 052/PAN/2026
10. In the present appeals it is also noted that, in the course of first appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) provided much less reasonable opportunities to the appellant in each of these cases and we say so because of undisputed facts that; (i) for all seven appeals, both the appellants were called upon on all very same days and (ii) same & common dated notices of hearing were issued for seven appeals to both the appellants (iii) these notices accorded less than a reasonable period of fifteen days to comply therewith. It shall be worthy to underline here that, the opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable, and effective and same should not be empty formalities, there should not be a paper opportunity. In this context the judgement of Hon'ble High court of Patna in 'St. Paul's Anglo Indian Education Society' [2003, 262 ITR 377 (Pat)]' apt for reference, wherein it was categorically held by their hon'ble lordships that, an adjudication is unjustified if an assessee was deprived of reasonable opportunity & time to represent the case. ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 11
Rajesh Verenkar & Riya Verenkar Vs ACIT ITA No.018 to 030 & 052/PAN/2026
11. On the other hand, from pg 68 to 191 of paper book placed on records representing acknowledgement of e- proceedings submission made by captioned assessee's we also note that, the appellant instead of making submission and representing the case before Ld. CIT(A) attempted furnishing application for additional evidence, affidavits, documents etc., online through e-portal. All the more these twin appellants did fail to bring their online response/submission to the notice of Ld. CIT(A) before whom the proceedings were pending in physical form. This attempt through suggesting of having carried out with much less bonafide, however since the proceedings were culminated ex-parte and without considering the necessary material as were available with assessing officer, hence in view of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 'CIT Vs Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd.' [2015, 231 Taxman 384] we are duty bound to remit these appeals to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for an adjudication a fresh in the light of material placed before the assessing officer. ITAT-Panaji Page 10 of 11
Rajesh Verenkar & Riya Verenkar Vs ACIT ITA No.018 to 030 & 052/PAN/2026
12. In summation, on one hand the appellants were deprived of reasonable opportunity and reasonable time to produce all relevant documents/evidence in support of grounds of appeal raised, and on the other hand the impugned adjudications for non-consideration of material placed before the Ld. AO suffered from compliance of provisions of s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act. For these stated twin reasons, we deem it fit to set- aside these impugned orders for their remand to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the same de- novo in accordance with law and pass a speaking order in terms of s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act, ergo ordered accordingly.
13. In result, these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinbefore.
-S/d- -S/d-
PAVAN KUMAR GADALE G. D. PADMAHSHALI
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Panaji/Dt.: 24th March 2026
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)/NFAC Concerned
4. PCIT Concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Panaji Bench, Goa 6. Guard File
By Order,
Sr. Private Secretary / AR ITAT, Panaji.
ITAT-Panaji Page 11 of 11