Delhivery Freight Services Private Limited vs Income Tax Officer

PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred as CIT(A) dated 14-10-2025 for the Assessment Year 2021-22.

At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,39,489/- under section 68 of the Act on account of unreconciled balances with transport vendors, without appreciating that complete primary records, audited books of account, ledgers, PAN/TDS details, rendition of services / genuineness of transaction and business nature of the payables were explained by the assessee. It was further submitted by the Ld. AR that Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee was not furnished complete copies of the notices u/s. 133(6) as well as the accounts/ ledgers/ information of the vendors, and hence, the addition made on such basis is vitiated in law. However, the Learned authorized representative for Revenue stated that departmental authorities have passed reasoned orders, after providing adequate opportunities to the assessee.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that it was the plea of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) that it was not given copies of all account statement or confirmations obtained by the AO. However, Ld. CIT(A) observed that AO provided copies of replies received from Orion Supply Chain (P) Ltd. and Triumula Transport Co. on 7.12.2022, 8.12.2022 and 9.12.2022 and asked the assessee to reconcile. However, assessee had sought time but could not furnish reconciliations even till the completion of assessment. Ld. CIT(A) noted that plea of insufficient time cannot be accepted at the appellate stage when multiple opportunities had already been given. Ld. CIT(A) further observed that the assessee’s accounting policy on revenue recognition and matching concept, and the peculiarities of its AXLE application, may explain part of the difference; however, without corroborative evidence from the counter parties, the onus under sections 68 and 69C remains undischarged. In view of above observations, we note that in the absence of proper corroborative evidences, the Ld. CIT(A) himself noted that the onus under sections 68 and 69C remains undischarged, which in our considered opinion, needs to be discharged by the Assessee to enable the lower authorities to adjudicate upon the issue in dispute in a proper way. Thus, we deem fit and proper to remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. However, assessee is directed through his Authorised Representative to substantiate its case before the AO by furnishing all the requisite and proper corroborate evidences and fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

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