SAMEER DALVI,NAVI MUMBAI V. ASSESSING OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

SA 28/MUM/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Sameer Dalvi, the applicant, who sought a stay on the recovery of an outstanding demand of Rs.5,51,464 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The demand was raised by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) following an assessment deemed arbitrary by the applicant's counsel, who argued that the assessment was completed without considering the submissions made by the assessee. The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the stay but did not object to an early hearing of the appeal. The tribunal decided to expedite the hearing of the appeal rather than granting a full stay on the demand.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 836093 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2026
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AANAVARAN KOSURI
• Keywords: Set aside; Application of stay
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, AM SA No. 28/Mum/2026 (Arising out of ITA No.822/Mum/2026) (Assessment Year:2012-13) Sameer Dalvi Flat No. 1501, Kshpira Sara Realty, 15th Floor, Sector 8, Plot No. 16, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai, Sanpada S.O.- 400 705, Navi Mumbai-400 705 Vs. Income Tax Officer Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No. AIVPD 0805 D (Applicant) : (Respondent) Applicant by : Shri Dhairya Dawda Respondent by : Shri Aanavaran Kosuri (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing : 13.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 O R D E R The present application has been filed by the assessee, seeking stay on recovery of outstanding demand of Rs.5,51,464/- for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Before us, ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the A.O. has completed the assessment to the best of his judgement without considering any of the submissions of the assessee and has raised an arbitrary demand. He submitted, if the appeal is heard on merit, the addition made by the A.O. will be set aside. Thus, he requested for stay of demand. Alternatively, he submitted, an early hearing of the appeal may be granted. 3. Ld. DR opposed grant of stay. However, he did not have any objection for early hearing of appeal. Printed from counselvise.com 2 SA No.28/Mum/2026 (A.Y.2012-13) Sameer Dalvi vs. ITO 4. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. Having gone through the respective orders of the departmental authorities, we are of the view that the issues have to be decided at the appellate stage based on factual position on record. Moreover, on a query of the Bench, ld. Counsel fairly submitted that as of now the A.O. has not initiated any proceeding for recovery of the demand. In the fitness of things, we deem it appropriate to grant early hearing of the appeal. We direct the registry to fix the appeal for hearing on 19.02.2026. Paper books, if any, must be filed by the parties by 16.02.2026. 5. In the result, the stay application is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 13.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Makarand V. Mahadeokar) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 13.02.2026 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT - concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "