SNEHA BINOY SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO CIRCLE 19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH,
MUMBAI
BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
&
SMT.RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
7
(A.Y.2017-18)
Sneha Binoy Shah
401 Laxmi CHS, 17 Vaccha
Gandhi Road, Gawdevi,
Mumbai-400007. Vs.
ITO Circle 19(3)
Room No. 605, 6th floor,
Piramal Chambers, Lower
Parel,
Mumbai-400012. थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AAKPS9525N
Appellant
..
Respondent
Appellant by :
Shri Smit C. Jhaveri, CA a/w Shri
Dharmil A. Jhaveri, CA
Respondent by :
Shri Ritesh Misra- CIT DR
Date of Hearing
06.11.2025
Date of Pronouncement
20.11.2025
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 11.12.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
“GOA No 1: Opportunity of hearing:
P a g e | 2
ITA NO. 5007/mum/2025. •
The Ld. CIT(A) not given proper opportunity of hearing and not considered the written submission of the assessee made while filing the said appeal.
•
The Ld. CIT(A) not considered the fact that the delay in filing the appeal was due to ill health of the Chartered Accountant's wife. An application for condonation of delay to this tune along with Dr
Certificate and insurance claims were submitted during the appeal to justify reason for delay in filing the said appeal.
GOA No 2: Addition u/s 68 being LTCG on sale of shares amounting to Rs 61.05.510/-
•
The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance the LTCG on sales of shares amounting to Rs 61,05,510/-. The Ld. CIT(A) without going into the merit of the case simply disallowed the appeal on account of delay in filing the said appeal.
•
The Ld. CIT(A) not considered the fact that the assessee is a Bonafide purchaser of shares, shares are in DMAT account for more than 12
months, both purchase and sales of shares are done through a recognized stock exchange, there is no proof of cash trail to substantiate the claim of the Ld. AO for making the addition.
GOA No. 3 Addition u/s 69C being commission paid Rs 3,05,276/-
•
The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs 3,05,276/- being commission expenditure. The Ld. CIT(A) without going into the merit of the case simply disallowed the appeal on account of delay in filing the said appeal.
GOA No.4 Interest U/s. 234A,234B, 234C
•
The Ld. ITO (NFAC) has levied interest U/s 234A, 234B, 234C of Income Tax Act 1961 on taxes which has been confirmed by the Ld.
CIT(A).
GOA No.5- We reserve our right to add, amend, alter, rectify, revise, whatever is stated herein above or may be stated herein after.”
P a g e | 3
ITA NO. 5007/mum/2025. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return for A.Y. 2017-18 on 05.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 32,67,280/-. On the basis of information received on INSIGHT portal regarding trading of penny stock by the assessee in the scrip of M/s. Toyam Industries Limited for Rs. 61,05,510/-, ld. AO issued notice u/s. 148 on 30.07.2022. The assessee did not file any return in response to this notice.
Thereafter several notices u/s. 142(1), as well as show cause notices u/s.
144 were issued to the assessee, however, no compliance was made to any of the six notices issued by the ld. AO.
Accordingly, assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s
144B on 23.05.2023 at total income of Rs. 96,78,066/- after making an addition of Rs. 61,05,510/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68
of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 27.02.2024 after a delay of 250 days. In the condonation application filed before ld. CIT(A), the assessee’s counsel owned the responsibility for the delay which was stated to be on account of medical exigencies in his family. However, ld. CIT(A) did not find the reasons convincing and, therefore, he rejected the request for condonation of delay and held the appeal to be not admitted, vide order dated 11.12.2024. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
4. At the outset, ld. AR requested before us that one more opportunity be given to the assessee as the delay and non compliance before the lower authorities occurred due to medical problems in his chartered
P a g e | 4
ITA NO. 5007/mum/2025. accountant’s family due to which he could not attend the proceedings on behalf of the assessee.
On the other hand, ld. DR has pointed out that as many as six notices were issued by ld. AO to the assessee yet no compliance was made. Even before ld. CIT(A), no compliance was made to the notices of hearing.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
It is noted that there has been persistent non compliance on the part of the assessee during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings.
However, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and, therefore, subject to payment of Rs.
5,0000/- to the PM National Relief Fund, by way of cost imposed on the assessee, the case is remanded to the ld. AO for fresh decision on merits after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and make requisite compliance before the ld. AO.
6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order Pronounced in Open Court on 20.11.2025 (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL)
(RENU JAUHRI)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
Place: Mumbai
Date 20.11.2025
Anandi.Nambi/STENO
P a g e | 5
ITA NO. 5007/mum/2025. 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.