TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1301
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn originated from order of assessment dt. 27/03/2025 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 263 of the Act by Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Panaji, Goa ['Ld. AO']. 2. We note that, the assessee individual filed her return of income on 04/08/2016 declaring income of Rs.5,75,17,590/-. The case of the assessee, after recording reasons and obtaining approval from competent authority by notice dt. 19/02/2020 u/s 148 of the Act, was reopened for re-assessing difference of capital gain arising out of deviation in sale consideration recorded/shown vis-à-vis stamp duty valuation adopted in relation sale of immovable property. Invoking provisions of section 50C of the Act the Ld. AO brought difference of capital gain of Rs.2,93,33,256/- to tax as undisclo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leged failure to furnish requisite documentary evidences either before the AO or during the appeal proceedings despite the fact that the same was duly provided. Failure to adhere to mandatory procedure for reopening of assessment 3. The Appellant submits that the above grounds of appeal are in addition to, in the alternative and without prejudice to each other as well as without prejudice to the contentions of the Appellant that the assessment order dated 24.09.2021 passed u/s 147 r/w 143(3) is without jurisdiction & bad in law and the proceedings u/s 263 initiated by the CIT are also bad in law. These grounds have been raised by the Appellant in the appropriate appeals which are pending. Therefore, nothing contained herei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grounds on merits since directed against solitary addition, therefore they were dealt in aggregate by the impugned order. 8. A cursory look into impugned adjudication palpably reveals us that, these twelve grounds were adjudicated together and dismissed blanketly without assigning any reasons in support thereof. We also note that, while arriving to such conclusion in relation to dismissing twelve meritorious grounds fusely the Ld. NFAC did neither appreciate the facts of the case independently nor could lay any reasoning in support conclusion so drawn by it. Further from para 4 & 5 of the impugned order (placed on pg 7 & 8) we also note that, the Ld. NFAC came to dismiss all grounds and in turn the appeal in toto on the sole premise tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tary evidences filed by the assessee. 11. Alike issue passing an order with consideration of assessee's key submission arose in 'Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs CCIT' [2024, 302 Taxman 194 (Bom)], wherein their Hon'ble lordship have held that, any adverse order passed by the Revenue Authorities disregarding assessee's primary or key submissions would be violative of natural justice therefore deserves to be set-aside for de-novo consideration. 12. It shall be apt to also state here that, similarly the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court further in the case of 'Vijay S Kulkarni Vs ITAT, Pune' [2025, 171 Taxmann.com 696] after reiterating the core principle laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Delhi Transport Corp. Vs DTC Mazdoor Union' [1999, AIR 564....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manner and in no other manner'. In view of the Ld. co-ordinate bench decision in 'Computer Science Corp. India (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT' [2024, 163 taxmann.com 693] order dismissing all ground based on single issue by disobeying the mandates of s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act ceases to be lawful adjudication, therefore renders irregular. 15. In the present case, since all grounds of merits were adjudicated & dismissed together by the Ld. NFAC were much less adhered to the former stipulation of s/s (6) (supra), therefore such adjudication has suffered from the compliance and thus rendered itself irregular, for the reasons said adjudication is also hereby set aside. 16. In view of the aforestated findings and settled position of law, placing....