G-Trans Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

By CA Nikhil Gupta · Judgment date: 2022-11-09 · ITAT Delhi

ITATAllowedPUBLISH_READY

Important disclaimer

Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.

Source status: Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; the exact issuing-court primary record remains pending. Open packaged judgment PDF. This indexed page retains explicit official-source and later-history disclosures for reliance checks.

Case in 2 minutes

CIT(A) dismissed the appeal just on the ground that in Form No.35, the section of assessment order mentioned is 144 instead of 143(3). CIT(A) held that it is an incurable defect. Tribunal noted that CIT(A) has not specified under which law, it is an incurable defect. On query in this regard from the ITAT, the . DR has shown his inability to refer to any laws in this regard. Tribunal held that when interest of substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, it is always justice that prevails and remitted the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the issue and pass an order on the merits of this…

Result: Allowed. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.

Case snapshot

Court / TribunalITAT Delhi

Case numberITA No.398/DEL/2020

Decision date2022-11-09

Assessment yearAY 2015-16

CoramSHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER

OutcomeAllowed

Sections / provisions: 250

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

CIT(A) dismissed the appeal just on the ground that in Form No.35, the section of assessment order mentioned is 144 instead of 143(3). CIT(A) held that it is an incurable defect. Tribunal noted that CIT(A) has not specified under which law, it is an incurable defect. On query in this regard from the ITAT, the . DR has shown his inability to refer to any laws in this regard. Tribunal held that when interest of substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, it is always justice that prevails and remitted the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the issue and pass an order on the merits of this…
What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?

JUDGMENT-GROUNDED CASE RECORD

Material facts and procedural background

ITA No.398/DEL/2020 [Assessment Year: 2015-16] G-Trans Logistics (India) Pvt. Income Tax Officer, Ltd. Ward-1(2), 1201, Arihant Altura, Plot Vs CGO Complex,-1, Hapur Chungi, No.GH-03, Abhay Khand-II, Ghaziabad Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201001 Uttar Pradesh-201010 PAN- AAFCG3705Q Assessee Revenue

Assessee by Sh. Prateek Gupta, CA & Sh. Satyajeet Goel, CA Revenue by Sh. Yogesh Kumar Nayyar, Sr. DR

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld.

02. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. Assessing Officer erred in making impugned additions of Rs.14914040 in most mechanical and arbitrary manner, which are unlawful, imaginary, unwarranted, absolutely without any basis, perverse and based on mere surmises, suppositions and conjectures and that various observations made by him in order are either incorrect, irrelevant or untenable and has no applicability to this case and thus impugned order is liable to be quashed and returned income deserves to be accepted. 03. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. AO was not justified in making adhoc additions of Rs. 445820 by applying net profit ratio of preceding year in mechanical manner without any iota of any adverse findings or pointing out any discrepancies, and thus the same is without any basis, unlawful, unwarranted and is liable to be deleted. 04. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the impugned action of Id. AO of making additions aggregating to Rs. 14468220 under section 68 is absolutely arbitrary, unlawful, unwarranted, perverse, bad in law and against the settled tenets of…

3. Brief facts of the case are that in this case Assessing Officer vide

Appellant / assessee submissions

The packaged judgment does not separately label the appellant's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

6. Be as it may in our considered opinion, when interest of substantial

Operative decision and relief

7. In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Official source and later-history control

Primary record: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING

Later-history status: RECTIFICATION_HIGH_COURT_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING

ITAT rectification, jurisdictional High Court appeal and Supreme Court SLP history remain to be closed.

Release decision: Published with a sanitized local judgment copy and explicit source disclosure; official-primary retrieval and later-history surveillance remain open. Checked 2026-08-11; page is published as index,follow with these limitations disclosed.

FININ2MIN ANALYSIS

Ratio and legal principle

The packaged judgment addresses CIT(A) dismissed the appeal just on the ground that in Form No.35, the section of assessment order mentioned is 144 instead of 143(3). CIT(A) held that it is an incurable defect. Tribunal noted that CIT(A) has not specified under which law, it is an incurable defect. On query in this regard from the ITAT, the . DR has shown his inability to refer to any laws in this regard. Tribunal held that when interest of substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, it is always justice that prevails and remitted the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the issue and pass an order on the merits of this…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with cit(a) dismissed the appeal just on the ground that in form no.35, the section of assessment order mentioned is 144 instead of 143(3). cit(a) held that it is an incurable defect. tribunal noted that cit(a) has not specified under which law, it is an incurable defect. on query in this regard from the itat, the . dr has shown his inability to refer to any laws in this regard. tribunal held that when interest of substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, it is always justice that prevails and remitted the issue to the file of the ld. cit(a) to consider the issue and pass an order on the merits of this… Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.

Practitioner action points

Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.

Can I rely on this judgment?

Authority level	ITAT
Source integrity	Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; issuing-court primary pending
Repository release	PUBLISH_READY
Reliance rule	Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote.

Does this case match your facts?

Stronger match when

The same primary issue is raised.
The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
The material documentary record is substantially similar.

Weaker / distinguishable when

A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.

Questions this judgment answers

What was the main dispute in G-Trans Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO?

Which facts matter most?

What did the ITAT Delhi decide?

7. In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.

What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?

The packaged judgment addresses CIT(A) dismissed the appeal just on the ground that in Form No.35, the section of assessment order mentioned is 144 instead of 143(3). CIT(A) held that it is an incurable defect. Tribunal noted that CIT(A) has not specified under which law, it is an incurable defect. On query in this regard from the ITAT, the . DR has shown his inability to refer to any laws in this regard. Tribunal held that when interest of substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, it is always justice that prevails and remitted the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the issue and pass an order on the merits of this…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Which provisions should be checked?

250

When is the case most useful?

When the user's facts raise the same issue - CIT(A) dismissed the appeal just on the ground that in Form No.35, the section of assessment order mentioned is 144 instead of 143(3). CIT(A) held that it is an incurable defect. Tribunal noted that CIT(A) has not specified under which law, it is an incurable defect. On query in this regard from the ITAT, the . DR has shown his inability to refer to any laws in this regard. Tribunal held that when interest of substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, it is always justice that prevails and remitted the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the issue and pass an order on the merits of this… - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.

What could distinguish the case?

Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.

Can it be cited without another current-law check?

No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.