AIRSTATE LOGISTICS & COURIERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BENGALURU
Facts
The assessee company, engaged in courier and logistics, filed its return for AY 2014-15. The assessment was reopened, and the AO disallowed truck expenses of Rs. 55,21,568 under Section 40A(3A), leading to a total income of Rs. 98,84,500. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution despite several notices.
Held
The Tribunal found it an undisputed fact that the assessee could not represent its case before the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee's AR undertook to submit all necessary documents and requested a remand. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the appeal dismissal by CIT(A) on procedural grounds without considering merits was justified, and whether the disallowance under Section 40A(3A) was correctly applied.
Sections Cited
253(5), 40A(3A), 271(1)(c), 234A, 234B, 234D, 147, 143(3), 148, 40A(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This Appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 16.5.2024 vide DIN and Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064922646 (1) passed u/s. 250of the income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the AY 2014-15.
The assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal: -
ITA No.586/Bang/2025 Airstate Logistics & Couriers Private Limited, Bengaluru Page 2 of 5
ITA No.586/Bang/2025 Airstate Logistics & Couriers Private Limited, Bengaluru Page 3 of 5 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of courier and logistic operations. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 30.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.36,91,020/-. The said return was revised on 28.5.2015 declaring income of Rs.43,62,940/-. The case was thereafter selected for scrutiny and order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 16.12.2016 by accepting the returned income. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 13.3.2019 with the prior approval of Addl CIT vide letter dated 18.2.2019. The main reason for reopening of the assessment was that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. The AO thereafter completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 12.12.2019 by disallowing the truck expenses amounting to Rs.55,21,568/- as per the provisions contained in section 40A(3A) of the Act and accordingly assessed on a total income of Rs.98,84,500/-.
Aggrieved by the assessment completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 12.12.2019, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.
The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee since in spite of 4 numbers of notices issued to the assessee, the assessee neither submit any documents/records nor responded to any of the notices. Further, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC held that the assessee is not aggrieved with the assessment order impugned herein and is not interested in pursuing the same and accordingly the additions/disallowances as challenged in the grounds of appeal were dismissed.
Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed
ITA No.586/Bang/2025 Airstate Logistics & Couriers Private Limited, Bengaluru Page 4 of 5 a paper book comprising 60 pages containing therein brief facts and notes on arguments, copy of the order of the AO and ld. CIT(A) as well as case laws relied upon by the assessee.
Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee could not represent its case before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC due to the shifting of the registered office of the assessee. Further, the ld. A.R. of the assessee prayed to remit the entire issue to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh consideration and also undertakes to appear before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and submit all the necessary documents/records to substantiate its claim.
The ld. D.R. on the other hand, vehemently supported the order of the Authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee company could not represent its case before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before us, the ld. A.R. of the assessee undertakes to submit all the necessary documents/records/confirmation to substantiate its claim and requested to remit the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide a fresh. This being so, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit and proper to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the relevant documents/records/information/explanation before the ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC in support of its claim. It is ordered accordingly.
ITA No.586/Bang/2025 Airstate Logistics & Couriers Private Limited, Bengaluru Page 5 of 5
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27th Feb, 2026
Sd/- Sd/- (Prashant Maharishi) (Keshav Dubey) Vice President Judicial Member
Bangalore, Dated 27th Feb, 2026. VG/SPS
Copy to:
The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.
