What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the interconnectedness of the issue with a prior assessment year and the assessee's inability to effectively present its case in faceless proceedings.

The assessee filed its return of income, and the assessment was completed with a disallowance of depreciation. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition in an ex parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of depreciation was justified, and if the assessee was prejudiced by faceless appellate proceedings.

United Shippers Limited vs DCIT | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Vaity

For Respondent: Shri Pitamber Kumar, SR. AR

Hearing: 30.04.2026Pronounced: 04.05.2026

Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.:

This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2018–19, arising out of the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.11.2018 declaring total income of Rs.20,22,36,680/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed determining total income at Rs.20,81,22,042/- inter alia by making disallowance of depreciation

ITA No.5838/M/2025 United Shippers Limited amounting to Rs.34,70,172/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The Ld. CIT(A) in ex parte order confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Before us, the Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that due to constraints in the faceless appellate proceedings, the assessee could not effectively present its case and certain relevant submissions and evidences could not be placed before the Ld. CIT(A). It was further submitted that the issue of depreciation involved in the present year has direct nexus with the assessment year 2017–18, wherein the matter is stated to be pending before the Ld. CIT(A), and therefore the issues are interlinked. It was thus prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the issue involved in the present appeal pertains to disallowance of depreciation, which is stated to be linked with the preceding assessment year 2017–18, wherein the matter is pending adjudication before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the interconnection of the issue across the years and the submission of the assessee that certain relevant details could not be effectively placed during the faceless proceedings, we are of the considered view that the matter requires fresh examination. 7. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) is further directed to adjudicate the appeal for A.Y. 2018–19 along with A.Y. 2017–18, as

ITA No.5838/M/2025 United Shippers Limited the outcome of the earlier year has bearing on the issue involved in the present appeal, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate and furnish necessary details without seeking unwarranted adjournments.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 04/05/2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) (JAGADISH) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated: 04/05/2026 Ashwani Rao Sr. Private Secretary

ITA No.5838/M/2025 United Shippers Limited

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT (Appeals) 5. The DR, I.T.A.T.

By order

(Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

UNITED SHIPPERS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-1(3)(1), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments