Rajesh Suhas Verenkar vs. Revenue, Riya Rajesh Verenkar vs. Revenue [TU-DT-08-ITAT-2026]
Background of the Case
The matter before the ITAT Panaji Bench involved multiple appeals filed by Rajesh Suhas Verenkar and Riya Rajesh Verenkar for Assessment Years 2013–14 to 2019–20. The Appellant was engaged in civil construction activities, labour contracting, and acting as an agent or broker in processing land allotment applications in Goa. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted on 19 March 2019, during which certain incriminating documents were seized. Based on these materials and statements recorded during the search, the Assessing Officer initiated assessment proceedings under Sections 153A and 153C of the Act.
The Assessing Officer observed that only around 50–55% of the total business receipts were deposited into the appellant’s bank accounts while the remaining portion was allegedly kept outside the books and used for personal expenses or deposited in accounts of family members. Consequently, the Assessing Officer treated 50% of such alleged suppressed receipts as undisclosed income and made additions while completing the assessments.
Arguments by the Appellant (Assessee)
The Appellant challenged the assessment orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, during the appellate proceedings, several hearing notices were issued by the CIT(A). According to the Appellant, the appeals were ultimately dismissed ex-parte without granting a fair and adequate opportunity to present their case or submit supporting documents. The appellant contended before the Tribunal that the appellate authority proceeded without properly considering their submissions and without granting reasonable time to respond to the notices issued.
It was argued that the dismissal of the appeals without meaningful opportunity violated the principles of natural justice and resulted in confirmation of additions without proper examination of the facts and evidence.
Respondent’s Response (Revenue)
The Revenue relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities and submitted that several opportunities were provided by the CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings. The department contended that notices were issued on multiple occasions and the appellant failed to effectively respond or produce the required evidence to support their claims. Therefore, according to the Revenue, the CIT(A) was justified in proceeding ex-parte and confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the material available on record.
Court Findings and Decision
The ITAT Panaji observed that although the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices, the time provided to the appellant to respond was significantly short and did not constitute a real or reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Tribunal noted that in several instances less than fifteen days were granted for compliance and both appellants were called upon to represent multiple appeals on the same dates. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that the opportunity of being heard must be real, reasonable, and effective rather than a mere formality. The Tribunal also observed that certain submissions and documents had been placed on the e-portal but were not considered by the appellate authority while passing the ex-parte orders.
Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice had not been adequately followed and therefore set aside the orders of the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate the appeals afresh after providing proper opportunity to the appellant and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
To download official order, Click Here
“The site is for information purposes only and does not provide legal advice of any sort. Viewing this site, receipt of information contained on this site, or the transmission of information from or to this site does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. The information on this site is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice.”