SAVINO DEL BENE FREIGHT FORWARDERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

ITA 4990/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 September 2026AY 2022-238 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Savino Del Bene Freight Forwarders (India) Private Limited, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2022-23. The CIT(A) confirmed an ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 28,36,313, which was 8% of Rs. 3,54,53,912, made by the Assessing Officer (AO). This disallowance was on account of payments made to certain parties, including M/s. Hamburg Sudamerikanishe, Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, M/s. Emirates Shipping Line DMCES, and M/s. PAN Asia Logistics India Private Limited. The AO had issued notices under Section 133(6) to these parties to verify the genuineness of purchases. The AO observed that the assessee failed to provide requested documents, and some suppliers had filed non-business ITRs or reflected substantially lower turnovers. The assessee contended that it was a service provider, and the transactions were for arranging containers for customers, not for its own purchase of goods.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) made the disallowance in a hurried manner without proper application of mind and without considering the details filed by the assessee. The basis for the estimated disallowance of 8% was also found to be without a cogent basis. The CIT(A) affirmed the addition without independent application of mind or providing justifiable reasons. Considering the factual matrix, the Tribunal was of the view that the matter required reconsideration by the AO in the interest of justice and fair play. The AO was directed to allow adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate its contentions. The learned DR did not object to the proposed remand. Therefore, the appellate order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO for a de novo assessment. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by confirming the ad hoc disallowance of Rs. 28,36,313/- made by the AO, which represented 8% of payments made to certain parties, on the grounds that the appellant failed to file required documents, the parties did not receive notices under Section 133(6), an adverse inference was drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, and the appellant failed to discharge its burden of proof? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that it is a freight forwarder and its business model does not involve the sale/purchase of goods. The transactions were to support customers by arranging containers for re-export. The disallowance was made mechanically without appreciating that three of the four vendors were shipping lines/NVOCCs issuing Bills of Lading, not LRs. The AO overlooked documentary evidence like sample invoices, ledger copies, and bank statements. The non-response of third parties to Section 133(6) notices was beyond the assessee's control and should not lead to an adverse inference, especially when the assessee had disclosed transactions and maintained proper books. The AO also failed to ask for lorry receipts for Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, and the vendor's ledger was submitted and matched. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, through the CIT(A)'s order, contended that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the genuineness of the transactions, as required under Section 37 of the Act, and therefore, the disallowance was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6),Section 37,Section 114

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parikh,AR
For Respondent: Shri Basavraj Hiremath, CIT-DR)
Hearing: 21.08.2026Pronounced: 22.09.2026

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The instant appeal arising from the appellate order dated 24.02.2026 is preferred by the Assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 143(3)r.w.s.144B of the Income-tax Act,

P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2022-23 Savino Del Bene Freight Forwarders (India) Private Limited 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 20.03.2024 for the Assessment Year

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 133(6)

All 7,189 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →