DEEPTI KUMAR VARANDANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4245/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 September 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to effectively represent her case before the CIT(A) due to lack of proper evidence. Granting one more opportunity in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in online fashion trading, filed her return of income. The Assessing Officer made additions/disallowances on account of professional fees, commission expenses, and deductions under sections 80GG and 80D. The CIT(A) sustained most disallowances for lack of evidence, except for the 80D deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowances of professional and commission expenses were justified without proper consideration of evidence. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80GG,Section 80D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI, HON’BLE & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, HON’BLE

आदेश / ORDER PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 24/02/2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], for A.Y. 2020-21 on the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in confirming the disallowance of professional expenses without appreciating the facts and evidences on record.

2.

The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in confirming the disallowance of commission expenses without proper verification and without considering submissions made. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in disallowing deduction under section 80GG without appreciating the eligibility and supporting documents submitted. 4. The authorities below failed to properly consider the evidences and submissions made by the appellant, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 5. The order passed by the learned authorities below is bad in law and on facts and is liable to be set aside.”

2.

Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1. The assessee is an individual and sole proprietor of M/s. TAP Fashion, engaged in the business of online trading of fashion products. The assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.4,16,650/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, inter alia, on account of large commission expenses and low net profit. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished certain details and supporting documents in response to notices issued by the Ld. AO.

2.2. The Ld. AO, upon examination of the details furnished by the assessee, made following additions/disallowances:

i. disallowance of professional fees – Rs.2,75,900/-; ii. disallowance of commission expenses – Rs.1,28,300/-; iii. disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80GG – Rs.60,000/-; and iv. disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80D – Rs.25,000/-.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

3.

It is noted that various notices were issued by the Ld.CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings however no representation was made by the assessee or her representatives. The Ld. CIT(A), thus proceeded to adjudicate the grounds on the basis of the material available on record. The disallowance of professional fees of Rs.2,75,900/- and commission expenses of Rs.1,28,300/- was sustained for want of supporting documentary evidence/reconciliation. The disallowance u/s. 80GG of Rs.60,000/- was also sustained, whereas the claim of deduction u/s. 80D amounting to Rs.25,000/- was allowed on the basis of the documentary evidence available before the Ld. CIT(A).

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3.

Before us, the husband of the assessee appeared as Party-in- Person. He submitted that the assessee could not effectively represent her case before the Ld.CIT(A) and, therefore, the evidences and explanations relevant for adjudication of the issues could not be properly considered. He accordingly prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate her claims before the Ld.CIT(A).

3.1. The Ld.DR relied on the orders passed by the authorities below.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the record placed before us.

4.

Admittedly, the issues that survive for consideration before us relate to disallowance of professional expenses, commission expenses and deduction claimed u/s. 80GG of the Act. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) sustained these disallowances essentially for want of supporting documentary evidences and/or reconciliation being placed before him.

4.1. The assessee has appeared before us in person and has sought an opportunity to place the relevant details and supporting evidences before the Ld.CIT(A). Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of substantial justice, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to substantiate the claims raised by her.

4.2. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order qua the issues raised by the assessee in the present appeal and restore the same to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication de novo on merits, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to furnish all necessary details, explanations and supporting documentary evidences before the Ld.CIT(A) and to diligently participate in the appellate proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11/09/2026

Sd/- Sd/-

BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai Dated: 11/09/2026 Shamik Sr. P.S. Copy to: DEEPTI KUMAR VARANDANI, 1101, ELITE TOWER, ABHINAV 1 NAGAR, BORIVALI EAST, MUMBAI-400066, MAHARASHTRA

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2 AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400020, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 80D

All 123 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80D →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →