INCOME TAX OFFICER- 15(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENTRANS SHIPPING & LOGISTICS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 9299/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 September 2026AY 2013-1411 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) deleting an addition of Rs. 3,49,89,474/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69A for Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee, Glentrans Shipping & Logistics (I) Private Limited, did not file a return of income initially. The AO reopened the case under Section 147 based on information from the Non-filers Monitoring System (NMS). The AO found that the assessee's Form 26AS showed total receipts of Rs. 5,81,32,804/- with TDS of Rs. 10,71,242/-. However, the assessee's response to a notice under Section 148 indicated disclosed receipts of Rs. 2,31,43,330/- with TDS of Rs. 5,35,478/-. The difference of Rs. 3,49,89,474/- was added as unexplained money. The CIT(A) deleted this addition.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the entire case revolved around the difference between the business receipts/turnover and TDS figures. The AO observed a turnover of Rs. 5,81,32,804/- as per his information, with TDS of Rs. 10,71,242/-, while the assessee's ITR reflected a turnover of Rs. 2,31,43,330/-. The difference of Rs. 3,49,89,474/- was treated as unexplained income. The assessee claimed a gross turnover of Rs. 12,98,87,952/- with TDS of Rs. 5,35,478/- as per Form 26AS. The Tribunal found that the AO had not shared the information he relied upon with the assessee or the CIT(A). Considering the conflicting claims and the lack of transparency in sharing the departmental data, the Tribunal deemed it fit to remand the entire case to the AO for de novo assessment. The AO was directed to disclose the information he possessed and allow the assessee an adequate opportunity to reconcile the turnover and TDS figures. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,49,89,474/- made under Section 69A as unexplained money, considering the initial Form 26AS data available to the AO showed receipts of Rs. 5,81,32,804/-. - Assessee's contention: The AO relied on an unverified Form 26AS not provided to the assessee. The assessee's actual turnover was Rs. 12,98,87,952/-, with Rs. 2,31,43,330/- subjected to TDS. The AO incorrectly applied Section 69A and Section 115BBE. The reduction in Form 26AS data occurred after assessment, and the AO failed to provide the basis of the addition. - Revenue's contention: The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without adequately appreciating that the receipts of Rs. 5,81,32,804/- were evident in the assessee's Form 26AS at the time of assessment. The onus was on the assessee to explain the difference and justify why the initial Form 26AS data should not be relied upon. The deletion was made without demanding proper reconciliation of the Form 26AS receipts with the reduced TDS/receipts claimed by the assessee. The AO correctly placed the onus on the assessee to disprove the evidence, as the initial addition was based on strong prima facie evidence from the Department's database.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 194,Section 194A,Section 194C,Section 194I,Section 194H,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR&

For Respondent: Shri Rajgopal K. Parthsarthy(Sr. DR)
Hearing: 18.08.2026Pronounced: 21.09.2026

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The instant appeal arising from the appellate order dated 16.10.2025 is preferred by the Revenue 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. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,

P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2013-14 Glentrans Shipping & Logistics (I)Pvt. Ltd. 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated29.09.2021for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2013-14. 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 69A

All 15,187 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →