MULTI MODAL FREIGHT SYSTEM P LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2065/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 July 2026AY 2022-235 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to consider additional evidence furnished by the assessee, which was not available during the assessment and appeal stages, in the interest of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in transport and logistics, faced additions to its income due to suspected bogus purchases from suppliers who had filed non-business ITRs or showed lower turnovers. The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's books and estimated profits, which was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of income was justified without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and considering additional evidence. The issue also involves the validity of adverse inferences drawn from non-response to section 133(6) notices.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 145(3),Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

Hearing: 28.07.2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.2065/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) Multi Modal Freight System P ITO 10(2)(4) Ltd Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 E-203, Ajit Nagar Building, J B Vs. Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai-400059 PAN: AAACM4206B Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

Assesseeby : Shri Paras S. Savla : Shri Amit Kumar Singh, Sr. DR Revenueby : 23.07.2026 Date of Hearing : 28.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The present appeal by the assessee arises from the impugned order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 08.12.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23, emerging against the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] dated 24.03.2024, passed byAssessment Unit, Income Tax Department [in short, “the Ld.AO”]. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

ITA No. 2065/Mum/2026 Multi Modal Freight System P Ltd “1. The order passed by the learned AD as well as the learned NFAC is bad in law as they failed to provide sufficient opportunity to present the case and hence in violation to the principles of natural justice, and therefore liable to be set aside. 2. The order passed by the learned AO as well as the learned NFAC is bad in law, as they have drawn adverse inferences without granting any opportunity to cross examine the parties from who information under section 133(6) was obtained. 3. The learned NFAC erred in law and facts in upholding the action of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (learned AO) in rejecting the books of the appellant under section 145 of the Act. 4. The learned NFAC failed in appreciating that the books of accounts have been duly audited and accordingly the same cannot be termed as erroneous and rejected. 5. The learned NFAC erred in law in not appreciating the fact that no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant merely because third parties did not respond to notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act, when the appellant had discharged its primary onus. 6. The learned NFAC erred in law and fact in confirming the action of the learned AO in making addition of Rs.65,22,479 by estimating profits at 19.72% of gross receipts. 7. The learned NFAC failed to appreciate that the addition of Rs. 65,22,479 was made by the learned AO merely on his own surmises and conjectures and hence ought to be deleted. 8. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any ground of appeal at or before the time of hearing.” 2. Briefly stated, the assessee is a company engaged in the business of transport and logistics services. The return was filed on 05.11.2022 declaring total income u/s 115JB at Rs.33,54,881/- and the total turnover of the assessee was declared at Rs.5,00,88,034/-. During the assessment proceedings, it is observed by the Ld. AO that the assessee has made substantive purchases from such suppliers who have filed non-business ITR or reflected a substantially lower turnover as compared to turnover shown in GSTR-1 return. It is noticed that possibly the assessee has booked bogus expenses in order to reduce its profit/taxable income. The assessee was accordingly required to furnish the

ITA No. 2065/Mum/2026 Multi Modal Freight System P Ltd details of purchase i.e. name, address, PAN, ledger account, their confirmation, copies of bank statement, details of sales etc.

3.

In response, the assessee has furnished certain information, however was unable to furnish ledger copy of all the persons with whom it had made transactions. Accordingly, the Ld. AO had suspected the net profit of assessee which was decreased as compared to preceding financial year, so had issued notice u/s 133(6) to the concerned persons / entities.The compliance of notices u/s 133(6) was not made by the respective persons. Under such circumstances, the Ld. AO rejected the books of assessee u/s 145(3) and estimated the income of assessee at 19.72% of turnover,following the rate of profit as declared by the assessee for preceding financial year 2020-21 and made addition of Rs.65,22,479/- on account of variation in respect of business income.

4.

Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of assessee. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A) has filed the present appeal before us.

5.

At the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that at the stage of assessment as well as before the First Appellate Authority, certain information wasnot available with the assessee, which the assessee was trying to obtain from the respective parties. It is submitted that now the assessee is in possession of such information and corroborative evidence, in the form of ledger confirmation 3

ITA No. 2065/Mum/2026 Multi Modal Freight System P Ltd from CMA-CGM Agency Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee is of the bona fide belief that such additional evidence would satisfy the Revenue Authorities, upon examination of the same, to decide the issue raised in the present case with an amicable solution, leading to a judicious and logical conclusion. It was, therefore, the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. AO for adjudication taking into consideration the additional evidence furnished by the assessee before the Tribunal.

6.

Per contra, Ld. DR supported the orders of Revenue Authorities, however had not objected, if the issue is restored back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh verification and adjudication on merits.

7.

We have considered the rival submissions and peruse the material available on record. Admittedly, in the present case the additions in the hands of assessee were made on account of certain evidence which the assessee was unable to produce before the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee has brought such evidence on record after making necessary efforts to fetch such information from the respective parties and has produced such evidence before us, which would be helpful in concluding the issues with a judicious approach and to arrive at a logical decision.

8.

We thus find it appropriate to restore this matter to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence furnished by the assessee, which are admitted in the interest of justice. 4

ITA No. 2065/Mum/2026 Multi Modal Freight System P Ltd 9. Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with reasonable opportunities of being heard in the setaside proceedings. The assessee is also directed to co-operate and pro-actively assist in the set aside proceedings, failing which the authority would be at liberty to adjudicate the issue in accordance with the mandate of law.

10.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28-07-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (ARUN KHODPIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated : 28-07-2026. Ankit K., Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT

BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 145(3)

All 3,640 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →