Sunita Purushottam Virgincar v. ITO
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The reported judgment quashes reopening where the taxpayer had offered the sale consideration corresponding to her substantive 50% share under the Goa/Portuguese Civil Code regime; section 5A concerns division of income rather than changing the ownership of assets.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 148; 5A
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Goa Portuguese Civil Code, spouse's property share and reassessment: The reported judgment quashes reopening where the taxpayer had offered the sale consideration corresponding to her substantive 50% share under the Goa/Portuguese Civil Code regime; section 5A concerns division of income rather than changing the ownership of assets.
Material facts and background
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.496 OF 2023 1. SMT. SUNITA PURUSHOTTAM VIRGINCAR, (since deceased, through LRs) Indian National, about 85 years of age, r/o. Jose Inacio Loyola Road, Margao – Goa 403601. PAN: ABAPV7967Q, Duly represented by her lawful Power of Attorney, Shri. Vissu Purshottam Virgincar, about 57 years of age, Indian National, s/o. Smt. Sunita Purshottam Virgincar, r/o. Jose Inacio Loyola Road, Margao - Goa 403601, duly authorized by the Petitioner herein vide the Power of Attorney dated 10.08.2021. 1a. MR. VISSU VIRGINCAR, son of late Mrs. Sunita Virgincar, aged about 61 years, married, Indian National, businessman; 1b. MRS. LINDA VIRGINCAR, wife of Mr. Vissu Virgincar, aged about 57 years, married, Indian National, housewife. Both residents of H No 478, Near Maruti Mandir, Layamati Davorlim, Navelim Salcete South Goa 403801.
1c. MRS. GOPIKA SHEKHAR ΡΟΥ RAITURCAR, daughter of Late Mrs. Sunita Virgincar, aged about 62 years, married, Indian National, housewife and her husband; 1d. MR. SHEKHAR POΥ RAITURCAR, son of Mr. Govind Poy Raiturcar, aged 65 years, married Indian National, Both Residents of A 406 4th Floor Tridentia Panache Near Chinmay Mission, Landmark Gogol Margao 403601. le. MRS. SEEMA GAURISH NAIK, daughter of Late Mrs. Sunita Virgincar, aged about 58 years, married, Indian National, housewife and her husband; 1f. MR. GAURISH ANANTA ΝΑ , son of Mr. Ananta Naik, aged about 62 years, married Indian National, Both Residents of resident of C/o Kitchen Love, Ground Floor Apartment, Behind Loyala High School, Comba Margao - Goa.
Having his office at Blessing Pioneer Complex, Old Market, Opp. District Court, Margao - Goa 403601. 2. ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/ DEPUTY ASSISTANT/ COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, National Faceless Assessment Centre/ National e-Assessment Centre, New Delhi. 3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Having his office at Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No.5, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa - 403 001.
Mr Rahul Sarda (through V.C.) with Mr Gaurang Panandikar and Ms E. Dukle, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Respondents. CORAM:
Appellant / assessee submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Revenue / respondent submissions
Mr Rahul Sarda (through V.C.) with Mr Gaurang Panandikar and Ms E. Dukle, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Respondents. CORAM:
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
Having his office at Blessing Pioneer Complex, Old Market, Opp. District Court, Margao - Goa 403601. 2. ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/ DEPUTY ASSISTANT/ COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, National Faceless Assessment Centre/ National e-Assessment Centre, New Delhi. 3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Having his office at Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No.5, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa - 403 001.
Mr Rahul Sarda (through V.C.) with Mr Gaurang Panandikar and Ms E. Dukle, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Respondents. CORAM:
Operative decision and relief
Having his office at Blessing Pioneer Complex, Old Market, Opp. District Court, Margao - Goa 403601. 2. ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/ DEPUTY ASSISTANT/ COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, National Faceless Assessment Centre/ National e-Assessment Centre, New Delhi. 3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Having his office at Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No.5, EDC Complex, Patto Plaza, Panaji, Goa - 403 001.
Mr Rahul Sarda (through V.C.) with Mr Gaurang Panandikar and Ms E. Dukle, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Respondents. CORAM:
Reserved on: 27th JUNE 2024 Pronounced on: 4th JULY 2024 JUDGMENT : (Per M.S. Karnik, J.) 1. 2.
(2015) 375 ITR 308 (Bom.) (2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bom.) 3 WP No.1145 of 2017 decided on 06.10.2021
Signed by: NITI KISHOR HALDANKAR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 11/07/2024 11:01:02
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- No reliable precedent list was extracted automatically; use the full judgment for the citation chain.
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on Goa Portuguese Civil Code, spouse's property share and reassessment. The operative result is classified as Operative order controls. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Goa Portuguese Civil Code, spouse's property share and reassessment. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Reconstruct the reassessment timeline: original assessment, section 148A notice/reply, approval authority, notice date and the applicable section 149 limitation window.
- Preserve the complete response to section 148A(b), objections and proof of disposal; jurisdictional defects are often decided from the documentary chronology.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
How to apply this decision in practice
This Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) decision should be used by matching the client’s facts to the precise controversy in the case—Goa Portuguese Civil Code, spouse's property share and reassessment—rather than by relying only on the result. Start with the statutory version applicable to the relevant year and compare it with 148, 5A. Amendments, notifications, later Supreme Court/High Court decisions and a different procedural stage can materially change the answer.
For an assessment or litigation file, retain the documents that prove the factual bridge on which the judgment turns: the original notice/order, replies and objections, acknowledgements of filing/service, ledger and banking trail where relevant, contracts or property instruments where relevant, and the complete appellate chronology. If the case succeeds on jurisdiction or natural justice, do not assume the same outcome where the authority cures that defect. If it succeeds on evidence, identify exactly which documents the Court or Tribunal considered persuasive.
For reassessment/search matters, preserve the original reasons/information, section 148A show-cause and reply, sanction/approval, service trail, search panchnama and the material said to be incriminating. The jurisdictional timeline often matters as much as the quantum issue.
Finin2min reliance rule: cite the case for the narrow legal proposition actually decided, record any contrary authority, and attach the full judgment to the working paper or litigation file. This reduces the risk of a headnote or short summary being used outside its factual and statutory context.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | High Court |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: Goa Portuguese Civil Code, spouse's property share and reassessment.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 148, 5A.
- Your matter is at a comparable reassessment stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) considered: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.496 OF 2023 1.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Sunita Purushottam Virgincar?
The reported judgment quashes reopening where the taxpayer had offered the sale consideration corresponding to her substantive 50% share under the Goa/Portuguese Civil Code regime; section 5A concerns division of income rather than changing the ownership of assets.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.496 OF 2023 1. SMT. SUNITA PURUSHOTTAM VIRGINCAR, (since deceased, through LRs) Indian National, about 85 years of age, r/o.
What did the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) ultimately decide?
Having his office at Blessing Pioneer Complex, Old Market, Opp. District Court, Margao - Goa 403601. 2.
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on Goa Portuguese Civil Code, spouse's property share and reassessment. The operative result is classified as Operative order controls. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages 148, 5A. The relevant statutory version for Not stated in captured judgment metadata should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Goa Portuguese Civil Code, spouse's property share and reassessment . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- 148 — 148 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of goa portuguese civil code, spouse's property share and reassessment. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 5A — 5A is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of goa portuguese civil code, spouse's property share and reassessment. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under 148, 5A and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on Goa Portuguese Civil Code, spouse's property share and reassessment. The operative result is classified as Operative order controls. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Binding within the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction on subordinate authorities; persuasive elsewhere, subject to Supreme Court law. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING |
|---|---|
| Pages | 14 |
| SHA-256 | 771a611c4ac95bdb65f66e502f684b4dbcdb11ecfedd934b7c21f862bdd94aa7 |
| Original source URL | Not exposed publicly. Original provenance retained only in the private source-closure ledger. |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |