MONA SANJAY SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ASST. CIT CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
7
(A.Y.2018-19)
Mona Sanjay Shah
D-507 Anand Nagar Forjeet
Street Tardeo
Mumbai-400007. Vs.
Asst. CIT-CIRCLE-19(1)
506, Piramal Chambers,
Lalbaug Parel,
Mumbai-400012. थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:ABGPS6305P
Appellant
..
Respondent
Appellant by :
Shri D C Jain, Advocate
Respondent by :
Shri Umashankar Prasad (CIT
DR)
Date of Hearing
19.11.2025
Date of Pronouncement
21.11.2025
आदेश / O R D E R
PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :-
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”]
dated 16.08.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
“1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned
Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 1, 39, 94, 607/-being interest Received Under the head income from other sources as against business offered by the appellant.
P a g e | 2
ITA NO. 1062/mum/2025. Further the learned A.O. as well as learned CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the said interest received is already included in Audited Profit & Loss Account of the appellant and again added the same income from Other Sources amounts to double addition of same Income.
Under the facts and circumstances and in law the learned A.O. erred in computing G.P Ratio of A.Y.2017-18 and applying the same to AY 2018-19 and making Addition of Rs. 42, 90, 40/- based on assumption and surmises.
i) Under the facts circumstances and in law the learned A.O. made the addition of Rs. 14, 23,97,887/- being Loans & Advances given by invoking the provisions of section 68 of 1.T Act ii) The learned A.O failed to appreciate the fact that out of total of Rs. 14,23,97,887/-a sum of Rs. 5,51,47,018/- as on account of Sundry Debtors and balance Rs. 8,72,50,869/- are on account of Loans & Advances.
iii) The learned A.O. failed to appreciate that section 68 cannot be invoked in the Present case of the appellant as the pre-requisite conditions of invoking section 68 of IT Act are not met.
Under the facts and circumstances and in law the learned A.O. erred in making Addition of Rs. 8,03,81,562/- being the total repayment of loans as reported in Form 3CD by invoking the provisions of section 68 of 1.T.Act.
The Appellant crave leave to add, amend, alter, and delete the ground/s of appeals At or before the hearing of appeal.”
At the outset, it is noted that the appeal is filed after a delay of 475 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons of delay. It is submitted that the husband of the assessee was running the business on her behalf, however, he died on 06.06.2018 and thereafter the assessee has been in financial difficulties. As a result, the chartered accountant handling the natter could not be paid his fees and thus the taxation matters remained unattended. Considering the circumstances explained in the affidavit, we are of the view that the delay is on account of genuine hardship and for bonafide reasons and the same is, hereby, condoned.
P a g e | 3
ITA NO. 1062/mum/2025. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return for A.Y. 2018-
19 on 28.10.2018 declaring income of Rs. 30,47,830/- for business of trading in shares and securities, textiles financing and sub broking in shares. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) at an income of Rs. 24,41,12,376/- after making various additions and disallowances. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). In the absence of any evidence in support of various grounds of appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal.
5. Before us, ld. AR has submitted a paperbook containing relevant documents and has explained that no proper compliance could be made by the assessee before lower authorities as the assessee had lost her husband in 2018, who was looking after the business as well as taxation matters and she was facing personal and financial difficulties as explained in the affidavit for condonation of delay.
He has, therefore, requested that the matter be restored to the ld.
JAO of fresh adjudication on merits. Ld. DR has not objected to the said proposition.
6. After hearing both the parties, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to ld. Juri ictional AO for fresh adjudication on merits after giving due opportunity to the assessee.
P a g e | 4
ITA NO. 1062/mum/2025. 7. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order Pronounced in Open Court on 21.11.2025 (BEENA PILLAI)
(RENU JAUHRI)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
Place: Mumbai
Date 21.11.2025
Anandi.Nambi/STENO
आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. थ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु / CIT
4. िवभागीय
ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण DR, ITAT,
Mumbai
5. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
स ािपत
ित ////
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.