USHMA ASHISH SHAH,MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 41 (3) (4), MUMBAI

SA 54/MUM/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Ushma Ashish Shah, the applicant, who sought a stay on the recovery of an outstanding demand of Rs.18,49,719 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The demand was based on additions made following a report from the Investigating Wing, without providing adverse materials to the assessee. The assessee argued that this lack of information hindered their ability to effectively represent their case, despite having furnished all relevant documentary evidence. The department had also attached the assessee's bank account. The tribunal considered the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the submissions from both parties before deciding on the stay application.

• Duration Of Justice: 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2026
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V. S. MAHAJAN
• Keywords: 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. 54/Mum/2026 (Arising out of ITA No. 1698/Mum/2026) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ushma Ashish Shah R/o. B-7, Shivam Apartment, Subhash Lane, Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(3)(4) Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AZJPS 5036 J (Applicant) : (Respondent) Applicant by : Shri Akshit Kothari Respondent by : Shri V. S. Mahajan Date of Hearing : 27.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2026 O R D E R Captioned application has been filed by the assessee/applicant seeking stay on recovery of outstanding demand of Rs.18,49,719/-, pertaining to the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the addition based on which demand has been raised, was purely based on the report of the Investigating Wing and no adverse materials were provided to the assessee. He submitted, non-furnishing of such materials prevented the assessee from effectively representing his case, though, all documentary evidences in relation to the transactions were furnished by the assessee. He further submitted that assessee’s bank account, in the meanwhile, has been attached by the department. Without prejudice, ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee is willing to pay 20% of the outstanding demand within a period of three weeks, subject to such payment, Printed from counselvise.com 2 SA No.54/Mum/2026 (A.Y.2017-18) Ushma Ashish Shah vs. ITO recovery of the balance demand may be stayed and the appeal may be heard at an early date. 3. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted, the assessee may be directed to pay 20% of the demand. 4. We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. The claim and counter claim of the parties can be gone into in detail at the time of hearing of appeal and not at this stage. After considering the prima facie case, balance convenience and rival contentions, we direct the assessee to pay 20% of the outstanding demand by 17.04.2026. Subject to such payment, the Assessing Officer is directed to withdraw the attachment order and further not to recover the balance demand for a period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the corresponding appeal, whichever is earlier. Accepting the request of the assessee, which is not opposed by ld. DR, we direct the Registry to fix the appeal for hearing on 23.04.2026 on out of turn basis. Paper books, if any, must be filed by the parties sufficiently ahead of date of hearing. Since, the date of hearing of the appeal was announced in the open court in presence of parties, there is no need for issuance of notice of hearing to the parties separately. 5. In the result, stay application is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Makarand V. Mahadeokar) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 27.03.2026 Roshani, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com 3 SA No.54/Mum/2026 (A.Y.2017-18) Ushma Ashish Shah vs. ITO 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 "