SHRADDHA SHRIDHAR SAWANT,ANDHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 34 3 5 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3422/Mum/2026 (Assessment year: 2017-18)

Shraddha Shridhar Sawant vs ITO-34(3)(5), Mumbai F-4, 1103, Vijay Nagar CHS, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Bandra Ltd., Sahar Road, Andheri Kurla Complex, Bandra East, (East), Mumbai-400069 Mumbai-400051 PAN:ASZPS7972A APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri K. Gopal/Kalpesh Turalkar Revenue by : Shri Pasale Naganath Bhimrao- (Sr.DR) Date of hearing : 19/05/2026 Date of pronouncement : 22/05/2026 O R D E R Per:Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-ADDL/JCIT-A, Jodhpur [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2017-18, date of order 30.01.2026. The impugned order emanated from the order of the CPC, Bengaluru (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 143(1) of the Act date of order 19.03.2019.

2 ITA No.3422/Mum/2026 Shraddha Shridhar Sawant 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is running proprietary business in the name of M/s. Atharva Enterprise and engaged in business of service contract. Nature of business was to provide lift-men to various corporate offices like Indiabulls Finance Centre, Mumbai. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee filed the return and the return was processed by the Ld. AO by disallowing the office administrative expenses amount to Rs.22,79,818/- during processing of return u/sec. 143(1) without allowing opportunity considering the provisions of section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee has challenged the impugned order of the CPC before the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that the Ld. AO has no jurisdiction to adjust the expenses in the processing of return u/sec. 143(1) of the Act. But the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed with a delay for 2430 days (81 months). The assessee submitted the affidavit and the delay was duly explained. The Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order has noted the details fact which is contained in para no.4.5 is reproduced as below: “4.5 The appellant has submitted the following for justifying the said delay as under: 1. The appellant namely Shraddha Shridhar Sawant is making this application for condonation of delay in filing appeal before your Honours for condoning the delay of 2,430 days. 2. The applicant is an individual and during the year under consideration was running proprietary business in the name of Messrs Atharv Enterprise. The appellant was engaged in the business of service contract. The nature of business was providing services in the nature of lift attendant at India Bulls Finance Centre, Mumbai. 3. The present Appeal has been filed against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as "Act") dated 19.03.2019 passed by Centralized Processing Center, Bengaluru for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 (hereafter the "impugned order"), the Applicant submits that the physical copy of the said intimation not yet been served to the Applicant.

3 ITA No.3422/Mum/2026 Shraddha Shridhar Sawant 4. The Applicant submits that the copy of the said impugned intimation under section 143(1) Act was uploaded on e-portal of the Income-tax site which the Applicant could not be peruse due to the reasons mentioned in the below paragraphs. Under section 249 (2) of the Act, an appeal before the 1 Appellate authority has to be preferred within 30 days-of receipt of the impugned order.

4 ITA No.3422/Mum/2026 Shraddha Shridhar Sawant 12. Also, she asked some documentary information in respect of disallowance made under impugned intimation passed under section 143 (1) of the Act. 13. The Appellant feels she has been subjected to deep and unfair prejudice due to this impugned intimation /order which is quite baseless and outright erroneous as can be read and verified in the appeal and that she shall be subjected an unfair prejudice by not being awarded a condonation of delay. The Condonation prayed and if granted shall result in protection from grave miscarriage of justice. 14. The Applicant is therefore submitting the above Appeal today. along with condonation of delay application, hence the delay of 2,430 days in filing the present appeal. The delay therefore in the present case has been caused on account of a 'sufficient cause' and the same therefore deserves to be condoned.”

5 ITA No.3422/Mum/2026 Shraddha Shridhar Sawant amounting to Rs.22,79,818/- relating to office administrative expenses were disallowed. The assessee challenged both the legal grounds as well as the additions on merits before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the appeal was filed with a delay of 2430 days before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal solely on the ground of limitation by observing that the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was issued on 19.03.2019 whereas the appeal was filed on 13.12.2025, which was beyond the statutory time limit prescribed for filing the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation. On perusal of the impugned appellate order, we find that while computing the delay in filing the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 relating to exclusion/condonation of limitation during the Covid-19 pandemic period. We further find that reasonable opportunity was not effectively granted to the assessee for substantiating the explanation for delay. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity of hearing before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to reconsider the issue of limitation in a liberal and judicious manner after duly taking into consideration the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid Suo Motu Writ Petition concerning the Covid-19 pandemic period. The assessee is directed to file a proper explanation along with a detailed calculation of delay after considering the benefit available pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Ld. CIT(A) is further directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the

6 ITA No.3422/Mum/2026 Shraddha Shridhar Sawant assessee. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case which may prejudice the set-aside appellate proceedings. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing and the documents, if any, filed by the assessee shall be considered by the Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law. At the same time, the assessee is directed to remain diligent and cooperative and shall not seek repetitive adjournments during the set-aside appellate proceedings.