SURESH DATTU KAMATversusUNION OF INDIA THR THE SECRETARY AND ANR

                            902 WP-555-2026.docx



Meena


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

                 WRIT PETITION NO.555 OF 2026

SURESH DATTU KAMAT
Son of Dattu Kamat
Age 81 years
Resident of H No 780, Vaishnavi
Near Navdurga Temple,
Marcaim Ponda Goa                                  … PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. UNION OF INDIA
through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi — 110 001


2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX,
Income Tax Department,
Panaji Goa.                                        ... RESPONDENTS

Mr. Omkar Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Ms. Prajali
Tari, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Ms. Swati Kamat Wagh, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shibani Singbal,
Advocate for Respondent No.2.

                   CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES &
                              AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ.
                   DATED :- 7th OCTOBER, 2026




                               Page 1 of 6
                             7th October, 2026
                             902 WP-555-2026.docx




ORAL JUDGMENT (per Valmiki Menezes, J)


1.    Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith at the request of and
with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.


2.    his Writ Petition iled under Section 226 takes exception to an
order dated 26.06.2025 passed under Section 148 A (3) of the Income
Tax Act. he impugned order seeks to reopen the Petitioner’s assessment
for the Assessment Year 2021-2022.


3.    he Revenue, by a notice dated 13.03.2025 issued under Section
148 A(1) of the Income Tax Act called upon the Petitioner to show cause
why his assessment for the Assessment Year 2021-2022 should not be
reopened insofar as interest on certain securities in the amount of
Rs.2,51,257/- has escaped assessment. he notice claims that on receipt
of information from the Risk Management Portal formulated by the
Department, the Petitioner had entered into certain transactions in the
said Assessment Year and received interest which had escaped assessment.


4.    Based on this notice, the Petitioner iled a reply dated 16.03.2025
in which, he purported to justify that the said amount had not escaped
assessment but had in fact been accounted for in his return for the year
2021-2022 where income in the form of interest was returned in the
amount of Rs. 2,52,687/-.


5.    After considering the reply, the impugned order accepted the
explanation and dropped the proceedings insofar as the claim for


                                Page 2 of 6
                              7th October, 2026
                              902 WP-555-2026.docx




reopening of assessment in relation to the interest amount of
Rs.2,51,257/-. However, the impugned order proceeds to record that
from the very same information, which forms the basis of the notice,
there was escapement of income under a diferent head. According to the
impugned order from the information contained I Risk Management
Portal, the Petitioner had entered into transaction for purchase of an
immovable property and made payments of Rs. 83,87,386/- which had
not been disclosed in his returns. By the impugned order the Assessing
Oicer held that there was no explanation for this investment and
directed reopening of the assessment insofar as this item was concerned.


6.    he challenge to the impugned order is based on the premise that
the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction since the foundational
facts for reopening assessment under Section 148 (A) were missing in the
original notice sent to the assessee; according to the Petitioner the notice
was restricted to a claim of an escaped interest amount of Rs.2,51,257/-.


7.    he petition has been opposed by the Revenue on two
submissions, the irst being that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy of
iling an appeal after the assessment is complete and an order is passed. It
was submitted that even now the Petitioner has an opportunity of iling a
return and a detailed reply to the notice and he would be given an
opportunity of hearing before a fresh Assessment is done. he second
submission advanced by the Respondents is that the Assessing Oicer has
committed a mistake in omitting to incorporate in the annexure to the
original notice under Section 148(1) the basis for claiming that, income
in the amount of Rs. 83,87,386/- had escaped; it was submitted that this

                                 Page 3 of 6
                               7th October, 2026
                             902 WP-555-2026.docx




amount had escaped assessment and has come to the notice of the Oicer
only through the information received by the Oicer through the Risk
Management Portal. It is further submitted that the Oicer had this
information prior to issuing of the notice under Section 148 A of the Act
but had mistakenly not incorporated this fact as one of the foundational
facts in the notice. It was submitted that if the impugned order is set
aside, this Court ought to remand this case back to the Assessing Oicer
to enable him to either correct the notice under Section 148 A (1) or to
amend the original notice. Reliance is placed on the Judgement of Delhi
High Court in Catchy Prop- Build Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Assistant Commissioner
of Income Tax and Ors reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3457.


8.    After considering the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that
the original notice clearly set out only one ground for claiming reopening
of the assessment which stated there was escapement of income
comprising interest in the amount of Rs.2,51,237/-. his claim of the
Revenue was stated to be based upon information contained in the Risk
Management Portal of the Department. here is no other ground
speciied in the notice.


9.    he Assessing Oicer has considered the reply of the Petitioner
insofar as that ground was concerned and has accepted the same and has
dropped the notice insofar as this claim is concerned. However, whilst
passing the impugned order, the Assessment Oicer has referred to a
ground which was totally alien to and not disclosed in the original notice
under Section 148A.



                                Page 4 of 6
                              7th October, 2026
                              902 WP-555-2026.docx




10.    Considering that the ground now raised for seeking re-assessment
was not in the original notice, there was no foundational facts for the
assessment oicer to assume jurisdiction under Section 148A to proceed
to pass the impugned order. Consequently, therefore the impugned
order must be quashed and set aside to the extent that it holds the
Petitioner is liable for reassessment insofar as the details of transaction
stated in the paragraph 9 of the order. hat conclusion, holding that the
Petitioner has not disclosed the transaction of purchase of an immovable
property expending Rs 83,87,386/-, is without jurisdiction and therefore
set aside.


11.    Reverting to the submission of the Revenue that the case should
be remanded solely for the purpose of issuing fresh notice or an amended
notice insofar as the second ground is concerned, we are of the opinion
that no such purpose would be served by remanding the case to the
Assessing Oicer. he notice under Section 148 A(1) was restricted to
only one ground and remanding a matter to the Assessing Oicer where
the second ground is non- existent in the notice would not serve any
purpose. We have also perused the aidavit of the Assessment Oicer
iled before us which itself does not claim that there was any mistake on
the part of the Assessment Oicer in omitting to incorporate the second
ground of the transaction of purchase of an immovable property
expending Rs 83,87,386/-. It is not the case of the Assessing Oicer that
such a mistake has taken place and this cause has been pressed forth only
in arguments without any factual foundation for seeking a remand, in
the lines of the one granted by the Delhi High Court in Catchy Prop-
Build Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Consequently, we allow the petition.
                                 Page 5 of 6
                               7th October, 2026
                                                       902 WP-555-2026.docx




                         12.     Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition
                         to the extent of our inding above.




                         AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J                               VALMIKI MENEZES, J.




                                                          Page 6 of 6
                                                        7th October, 2026
Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR
Designation: Private Secretary
Date: 09/10/2026 17:27:19