Smt. Sunita Purushottam Virgincar Vs ITO (Bombay At Goa High Court)
In Smt. Sunita Purushottam Virgincar Vs ITO, the Bombay High Court addressed the issue of a tax order and reopening notice issued against Smt. Virgincar. The petitioner challenged the order dated 16.07.2021, arguing that it was flawed due to jurisdictional errors. The primary contention was that the Revenue’s rejection of her explanation based on Section 5A of the Income Tax Act was incorrect. This section pertains to the division of income between spouses under the Portuguese Civil Code, which does not apply to asset division.
The Court noted that since Smt. Virgincar’s husband had passed away in 1986, Section 5A was irrelevant to her case. Additionally, the Revenue’s reasoning, including the claim that a Sale Deed was not available, was deemed untenable as the document should have been on record from the Sub-Registrar’s office. The Court also highlighted that the substantive rights of the petitioner were governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, and her share of the property and the corresponding sale consideration had been properly declared.
Given these errors, the High Court quashed both the reopening notice under Section 148 and the order dated 16.07.2021, stating that the jurisdictional mistakes warranted such a decision. The ruling emphasized that mere non-mention of applicable legal provisions in the tax return did not invalidate the correct application of the law regarding her property share and tax obligations.
