TRIUM LOGISTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. CORPORATE WARD 3(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3725/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 September 2026AY 2017-1813 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the explanation for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was not substantiated. The company's active status on the MCA portal and substantial financial transactions indicated it was not dysfunctional. The Tribunal found no sufficient cause for condoning the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Trium Logistics India Pvt. Ltd., failed to file income tax returns for AYs 2016-17 to 2018-19 despite substantial financial transactions. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed assessments ex-parte. The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed due to inordinate delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was to be condoned, and if the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals in limine without considering the merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 249(3),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 251(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & MS. PADMAVATHY.S

For Respondent: Mr. K.Jayaganesh, CIT (virtual)

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: These appeals by the assessee are against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") all dated 17.04.2026 for Assessment Years (AYs) 2016-17 to 2018-19. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under: The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another:- 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned Order passed by the learned CIT(A) u/s 250 dismissing the appeal on the grounds of delay without considering the exceptional circumstances and

ITA Nos.3724 to 3726/Chny/2026 Trium Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. :- 2 -:

in violation of the principles of natural justice so liable to be set aside for adjudication on merit. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned Order passed by the learned CIT (A) u/s 250 in refusing to condone the delay under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by failing to appreciate that the Appellant was prevented sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed statutory time limit. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred relying on the "Active" registration status of the company on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) portal ignoring the undisputed fact that the Appellant company was completely non-functional and defunct as evidence of non-filer of requisite ROC Forms during the relevant period. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has failed to exercise the statutory jurisdiction explicitly restored to him under Section 251(1)(a) w.e.f. 01.10.2024 which empowers the CIT(A) to set aside an assessment order passed under Section 144 and remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication.”

2.

The assessee is a private limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of providing integrated logistics services, primarily in the domain of air and sea cargo transportation and allied logistics support. The assessee did not file the return of income for all the AYs under consideration i.e. 2016-17 to 2018-19. The AO received information that the assessee has entered into the following financial transactions during the years under consideration – AY 2016-17 i. TDS Return - Payment to Contractor (Section 194C) Rs. 9,59,46,531/- ii. Remittance to a non-resident or to a foreign company (FormRs. 4,80,51,262/- 15CA) iii. Rent Received (TDS Form 26Q, Section 194I(b)) Rs. 36,67,230/- iv. TDS Return - Professional or Technical Fees (Section 194J) Rs. 3,64,789/- v. TDS Return - Commission or Brokerage (Section 194H) Rs. 10,33,496/-

ITA Nos.3724 to 3726/Chny/2026 Trium Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. :- 3 -:

AY 2017-18 i. Remittance to a non-resident or to a foreign company (Form 15CA) Rs. 2,35,401/- ii. TDS Return - Other Interest (Section 194A ) Rs. 70,779/- iii. Rent Received (TDS Form 26Q, Section 194I(b)) Rs. 63,91,465/- iv. TDS Return - Commission or Brokerage (Section 194H) Rs. 7,520/ v. TDS Return - Payment to Contractor (Section 194C) Rs. 2,45,893/- AY 2018-19

3.

Since the assessee did not file the return of income inspite of having substantial financial transactions, the AO reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s.148 for all the AYs. The assessee neither filed the return in response to the notice nor the assessee replied to subsequent notices issued by the AO. Hence the AO completed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s.144.r.w.s.144B of the Act assessing the income of the assessee as under:

ITA Nos.3724 to 3726/Chny/2026 Trium Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. :- 4 -:

a. AY 2016-17 – Rs. 6,25,73,759/- b. AY 2017-18 – Rs. 69,51,058/- c. AY 2018-19 - Rs. 72,64,573/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay of 1217 days for AY 2016-17, delay of 1235 days for AY 2017-18 and delay of 885 days for AY 2018-19 in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

5.

We heard the parties and perused the material on record. The limited issue before us is whether the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is to be condoned considering the facts of the case. In this regard, we notice that the CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal in limine has given a very detailed finding which is extracted herein below – “5. DECISION: 5.1 It is seen that the present appeal is filed by the appellant on 25.08.2025 against the Order dated 26.03.2022. In column no. 2(d) of the Form 35, the appellant has stated that the said Order was served upon it on 29.07.2025 and accordingly in column no. 14 of the said form it has claimed that there is no delay in filing the current appeal. However, in column no. 15 of the said form the appellant has furnished the grounds for condonation of delay which is reproduced hereunder: “I was neither served with the statutory notices nor with the assessment order, and the delay in filing the appeal is solely attributable to the discontinuation of our business due to the reasons mentioned in the aforementioned paras, and my lack of knowledge regarding the same.” 5.1.1 Further, the affidavit produced by the appellant to explain the impugned delay in its appeal proceedings pending before this authority for AY 2017-18, is also reproduced hereunder for necessary reference and due consideration:

ITA Nos.3724 to 3726/Chny/2026 Trium Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. :- 5 -:

ITA Nos.3724 to 3726/Chny/2026 Trium Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. :- 6 -:

ITA Nos.3724 to 3726/Chny/2026 Trium Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. :- 7 -:

5.2 Contentions raised by Shri Sajith Menon (director of the appellant) explaining the cause of delay, are discussed as under:

A. It is noticed that the director Mr. Sajith Menon admitted that he was appointed as a Director of the appellant (company) on 08.04.2011 for administrative convenience as a local signatory based in Mumbai, as the key shareholders and promoters were frequently travelling abroad and he was not involved in the financial, strategic or statutory functioning of the company.

A1. It is to be noted that as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, Director of a company must ensure that a company complies with all applicable legal and regulatory frameworks, irrespective of whether the said director is involved in any strategic decision making or not. In this case, by his own admission Mr. Sajith Menon was appointed as a director for administrative convenience. Director is treated as the main officer of the company and shall be liable for penal consequences under various statutes, if affairs of the company are not in compliance with the Companies Act, Income-tax Act, FEMA provisions and other applicable legal statues defined for various industries.Therefore, he cannot take a plea that compliance with the regulatory requirements under the provisions of the Income-tax Act was not within his domain.

Further, he has failed to submit any details of the key shareholders and promoters of the appellant company and their foreign travel history, as claimed by him.

B. Mr. Sajith Menon admitted that since the cessation of operations, the Board of Directors of the appellant company became dysfunctional and he had no control over the company’s affairs, nor in possession of its statutory or financial records.

B1. To verify the said fact it is noticed that the information available in public domain shows that the company is still in active state. The necessary screen shot of said portal is reproduced hereunder for quick reference:

ITA Nos.3724 to 3726/Chny/2026 Trium Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. :- 8 -:

B2. It is also noticed that the appellant company has two directors, Pillai Satish Kumar and Pulikot Sajith Menon. Being directors of the appellant company, the statement that no control over company’s affairs and its financial records, is not tenable.

C. Mr. Sajith Menon, also admitted that appellant’s e-filing account was also not accessible to him and he was completely unaware of the notices issued u/s 148, 142(1) of the Act. He also stated that the only communication received by him was on 29.07.2025, on his personal email id, and then he accessed the e-filing portal and got to know about the assessment proceedings.

C1. The plea taken by Mr. Sajith Menon is not tenable as it is noticed that he was appointed as a director on 08.04.2011 and in this case the assessment was completed on 26.03.2022, and during the span of 11

ITA Nos.3724 to 3726/Chny/2026 Trium Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. :- 9 -:

years, he never tried to access the appellant’s e-filing portal, cannot be accepted. Further, from the said affidavit it is noted that as and when Mr. Sajith Menon, received revenue’s communication on his personal email id on 29.07.2025, he immediately became active and accessed the appellant’s e-filing portal. This fact is enough to prove that the appellant and its directors have never bothered in seriousness to respond to the Revenue’s communication and have not cooperated with the will of the Legislature to effectively proceed with the faceless mode of assessment.

D. Further, in the affidavit it is stated that notices and Order were not served upon it.

D1. The said fact has been verified from ITBA and it is noticed that the Order dated 26.03.2022 was served upon it on same day through email on email id pkc.mumbai@gmail.com which was provided by the appellant in its last filed ITR. The necessary snapshots substantiating the service of Order and email id given in the ITR are reproduced hereunder:

ITA Nos.3724 to 3726/Chny/2026 Trium Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. :- 10 -:

D2. Hence, it is evident that the impugned Order was duly served on the appellant on 26.03.2022 itself. If the plea of Mr. Sajith Menon is accepted, it would, in turn, be accepting that the Department ought to search for personal e-mail IDs of directors of an assessee which is a company if due compliance is expected from such an assessee, and any communication issued on the e-mail id provided by such a company to the Department, would have no legal sanctity in terms of its timely response solicited from the assesses.

5.3 In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion, I find that the current appeal filed by the appellant on 25.08.2025, is delayed by 1217 days, for which no valid “sufficient cause” in terms of provisions of section 249(3) of the Act have been proved by it. Therefore, the impugned delay does not deserve to be condoned.”

6.

From the perusal of the findings recorded by the CIT(A) for all the three years which is identical and the affidavit of Shri Sajith Menon, we notice that in Form No.35 filed for each of the years, the assessee has stated that there is no delay while simultaneously seeking condonation of delay, and this makes it difficult to appreciate the case set up by the assessee. We further

ITA Nos.3724 to 3726/Chny/2026 Trium Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. :- 11 -:

notice that the assessee company would have minimum two directors on its Board, one of whom is the deponent himself, and that the company continues to be reflected as “Active” in the records maintained by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs as per the findings of the CIT(A). Having regard to this, we are of the considered view that the explanation that the Board had become dysfunctional and that the directors had no access to the statutory records of the company is not fully substantiated, particularly in the absence of any corroborative material placed before us in this regard. We also notice that the assessee has, during each of the years under consideration, undertaken substantial financial transactions, including payments to contractors, remittances to non-residents, and receipt of rent, commission and professional fees running into several crores, and in our considered view, a company transacting business of this magnitude cannot easily be said to have become so dysfunctional that its Board was altogether unaware of its affairs. We further notice that the assessee company has been in existence since the year 2008 and is stated to be managed by its Board of Directors, and being so, the assessee, in our considered view, ought to have had knowledge of the various regulatory compliances required to be undertaken since its incorporation, and the plea of ignorance of the proceedings over an extended period does not appear to be convincing. We also notice that the statutory responsibility for compliance rests with the promoter-directors of the company, and in our considered view, the affidavit of Shri Sajith Menon, who describes himself as a director inducted for administrative convenience, would not, by itself, be sufficient to discharge that responsibility on behalf of the company, particularly in the absence of any affidavit or explanation from the other, promoter director. We also notice that the assessment order dated 26.03.2022 was served on the e-mail ID furnished by the assessee company in its own

ITA Nos.3724 to 3726/Chny/2026 Trium Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. :- 12 -:

return of income, and that the delivery of the said communication is duly recorded. In our considered view, service effected at an e-mail address furnished by the assessee to the Department cannot easily be disowned merely on the ground that a particular director did not have access to it. We further notice that upon receiving the communication on his personal e-mail on 29.07.2025, the deponent appears to have accessed the e-filing portal on the same day, which would suggest that the delay in the assessee coming to know of the proceedings was not entirely on account of circumstances beyond its control. Since the facts and the explanation offered for condonation of delay are identical for all three years, our findings hereinabove would apply mutatis mutandis to AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 as well.

7.

It is well settled that “sufficient cause” u/s.249(3) of the Act has to be a cause beyond the control of the assessee, and that condonation of delay is not a matter of right but a matter of discretion to be exercised judicially, having regard to the conduct of the party seeking. In the present case, having regard to the conduct of the assessee as discussed above, we are unable to persuade ourselves that a sufficient cause, within the meaning of section 249(3) of the Act, has been shown for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) for any of the three years. It is also relevant to mention here that during hearing the bench directed the assessee to pay since considerable time and efforts have been spent by the Exchequer and for the reason that the assessee being delinquent before the lower authorities and that necessary support in this regard may be availed. However, we notice that inpite of our directions and the opportunities given, the assessee failed to comply with the said directions. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view

ITA Nos.3724 to 3726/Chny/2026 Trium Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. :- 13 -:

that there is no infirmity in the orders of the CIT(A) declining to condone the delay and dismissing the appeals in limine.

8.

In result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 are dismissed.

Order pronounced on 04th day of September, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक�) (पदमावती यस) (ABY. T. Varkey) (Padmavathy.S) �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member लेखा सद�य /Accountant Member चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 04th September, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S EJTADA Digitally signed by आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: EJTADA DURGA NARESH DURGA Date: 2026.09.08 15:48:42 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant NARESH +05'30' 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →