CARGOES TECHNOLOGY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO) - WARD 6(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2851/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 September 2026AY 2024-255 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Cargoes Technology (India) Private Limited, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2024-25 on 30.10.2024, declaring a total income of Rs. 53,49,97,850/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and an assessment order under section 143(3) read with section 144B was passed on 18.12.2025, making additions of Rs. 43,76,132/- for repairs and maintenance, Rs. 25,24,796/- for provisions for insurance expenses, and Rs. 47,22,39,222/- for provisions of employee benefit expense. The assessee appealed to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC dismissed the appeal, noting that no response was received from the assessee to notices issued through the ITBA Portal. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT challenges this order.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the additional evidence sought to be produced had a direct bearing on the issues and was necessary for a proper, fair, and effective adjudication. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's argument that appellate notices from the NFAC were not served on its registered e-mail address, depriving it of an effective opportunity to present evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and set aside the order of the NFAC, restoring the matter to the NFAC's file for fresh adjudication. The NFAC is directed to examine the additional evidence, afford an adequate opportunity of hearing to both parties, and then adjudicate the issues on merits by passing a speaking order. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the substantive grounds of appeal concerning the disallowances and penalty proceedings, as these are to be decided by the NFAC upon remand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment proceedings and the consequent assessment order are bad in law due to the alleged invalidity of the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it was not issued as per the format prescribed by CBDT Instruction F.No. 225/157/2017/ITA.II dated 23 June 2017? 2. Whether the disallowance of Rs. 43,76,132/- on account of repairs and maintenance expenses, treating them as capital in nature, is erroneous, and if these expenses are revenue in nature and allowable under section 37 of the Act? 3. Whether the disallowance of Rs. 25,24,796/- on account of provisions for insurance expenses is erroneous, and if these expenses accrued during the year and are allowable as deduction under section 37 of the Act? 4. Whether the disallowance of Rs. 47,22,39,222/- on account of provisions for employee benefit expenses is erroneous, and if the provision for gratuity, suo-moto disallowed under section 40A(7), leads to double disallowance, and if the provision for bonus, paid after 31 March 2024 but before the return filing date, is allowable under section 43B of the Act? 5. Whether the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act is erroneous? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the NFAC violated the principles of natural justice by not serving notices on its registered e-mail address, leading to the confirmation of additions without an effective opportunity to be heard. The assessee also sought to place additional evidence on record, stating that only sample documents were furnished during assessment due to the voluminous nature of records. The assessee contended that the notice under section 143(2) was invalid due to non-compliance with CBDT instructions. The assessee further argued that the disallowances on repairs, insurance, and employee benefits were erroneous, with specific arguments for each category, including double disallowance and eligibility under section 43B for bonus provisions. The assessee also challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue opposed the admission of additional evidence on the grounds that it was not produced before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 250,Section 37,Section 40A(7),Section 43B,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI GIRISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, CIT DR
Pronounced: 23.09.2026

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal for the assessment year 2024-25 is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 18.02.2026, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed its return of income u/s. 139(1) on 30.10.2024 declaring total income of Rs. 53,49,97,850/- for the Assessment Year 2024-25. After processing the ITA 2

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 7,954 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →