M/S. JORAJ SHIPPING SERVICE PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORP. WARD-2(3), CHENNAI

For the purpose of adjudication, we will first consider the quantum appeal. The assessee is a private limited company and did not file the return of income. The A.O noticed that the assessee has deposited cash to the tune

There is a delay of 942 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the assessee filed an affidavit in this regard, which reads as under: “6. That the petitioner Company was incorporated on 08.12.1986 and was, since its inception, engaged in the business of Clearing and forwarding and allied services within the shipping industry. During the relevant assessment year under consideration, the petitioner continued to carry on the said business activities. 7. That the petitioner discontinued its business operations with effect from Financial Year 2013-14. Consequent to such discontinuation and prolonged inactivity, the name of the Company came to be struck off from the records of the Registrar of Companies since 2013, in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Owing to the aforesaid striking off, the petitioner was rendered non-operational in the legal and regulatory framework, and, inter alia, access to the Income Tax e-filing portal was also disabled. 8. That the petitioner was effectively precluded from accessing its online Income Tax account and complying with statutory filing requirements in accordance with the Income Tax Act, 1961.In view of the cessation of business operations and the consequential legal status of the Company, the Petitioner could not file its return of income. Even the Custom House Agent's Licence granted to the petitioner by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India also was deactivated by the department due to nonoperation of transactions. 9. That the case of the petitioner was reopened beyond 4 years from the end of the assessment year 2010-11 being the impugned year, by issue of a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.03.2017 which was purportedly issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer,

That the said notice appears to have been issued on the last permissible date prescribed under section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Given that fact that petitioner did not have access to the Income Tax e-filing portal at the relevant point in time, the notice was stated to have been dispatched through other modes to the petitioner.

That the aforesaid notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was subsequently served upon the petitioner on 29.05.2017 at its then current address, calling upon the petitioner to furnish its return of income for the relevant assessment year. Upon receipt of the said notice, the petitioner, through its Chartered Accountant, Mr. Haresh Kumar, made efforts to regularize its compliance by approaching the Income Tax Department, including the e-filing helpdesk, with a request to restore access to the e-filing portal so as to enable filing of the return and participation in the proceedings.

That in the interim, a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 17.09.2018 was issued by the Assessing Officer and was served on the petitioner on 20.09.2018. It is humbly submitted that despite the passage of time, the petitioner continued to face technical constraints in accessing the e-filing portal. Consequently, the petitioner addressed a written communication dated 26.09.2018 to the Assessing Officer, specifically requesting that necessary steps be taken to provide unrestricted access to the Income Tax portal, thereby enabling the petitioner to comply with the statutory requirements and effectively participate in the ongoing assessment proceedings.

That the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer dated 22.10.2018, expressed his inability to facilitate restoration of access to the Income Tax e-filing portal and advised the Petitioner to pursue the matter with the e-filing helpdesk. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 24.10.2018 calling for details through post. The Petitioner continued to make earnest efforts to resolve the issue with the e-filing helpdesk, however, such efforts did not yield any positive outcome, and access to the portal remained unavailable.

That the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice dated 03.12.2018 for completion of assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 proposing an addition of Rs.60,00,000/- being cash deposits in the bank account thereby treating the same as unexplained investments under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

That despite multiple bona fide attempts made by the petitioner to restore access to its e-filing account and to comply with the statutory requirements, the petitioner was unable to file its return of income or

That Shri. Haresh Kumar, Chartered Accountant, who had represented the petitioner during the course of the assessment proceedings, was duly entrusted with the responsibility of handling and pursuing the appellate proceedings on behalf of the Petitioner. However, it is submitted that Shri Haresh Kumar. Chartered Accountant, failed to effectively prosecute the appeal and did not participate in the appellate proceedings. Consequently, the appellate order came to be passed ex-parte on 19.10.2023. It is further submitted that the aforesaid development was never communicated to the petitioner at any point of time by Shri Haresh Kumar, Chartered Accountant.

That the Petitioner was, in any event, unaware of the passing of the appellate order, due to the fact that the company was inoperative and had not conducted any business during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant company had entrusted the appeal with the Chartered Accountants and the return filing through the Income Tax Portal was also carried out by the referring Chartered Accountant and the appellant did not have any chance to check the portal. The petitioner, therefore, remained under the bona fide belief that the matter was being duly attended to and was pending adjudication.

That the petitioner, with the intention of reviving the Company and regularizing its affairs, approached its banker for the purpose of updating Know Your Customer (KYC) details and reactivating the bank account. At that stage, the petitioner was informed by the bank that the bank account had been attached by the Income Tax department in connection with the outstanding demand arising from the assessment proceedings. Upon becoming aware of the said development, the petitioner made attempts to contact Shri. Haresh Kumar, Chartered Accountant to ascertain the status of the matter. However, such attempts proved unsuccessful, and the petitioner was unable to establish any communication with him.

The petitioner thereafter approached another Chartered Accountant, through whom Shri Haresh Kumar, Chartered Accountant, had originally been engaged, to ascertain the status of the matter. It was then informed to the petitioner that Shri Haresh Kumar had been facing extraordinary

That during the financial year 2023-24, the Uncle and Guardian of Shri Haresh Kumar was critically ill requiring constant care and attention, which was being personally attended to by him. Unfortunately, his uncle and Guardian subsequently passed away. Further, during the financial year 2024-25, Shri Haresh Kumar himself suffered from serious health complications. He was diagnosed with Guillain Barré Syndrome, a severe neurological condition affecting the peripheral nerves, resulting in significant physical debilitation. In addition, he was also diagnosed with Glioblastoma, an aggressive and high-grade malignant brain tumour, with grave medical prognosis.

That it was also conveyed that Shri Haresh Kumar's son, who was in his twenties, unfortunately suffered a cardiac arrest, adding to the series of unfortunate and debilitating circumstances faced by him. In view of the above exceptional and unforeseen circumstances, Shri Haresh Kumar, Chartered Accountant was rendered incapable of effectively discharging his professional duties during the relevant period, which has directly contributed to the lapse in pursuing the appellate proceedings on behalf of the petitioner.

That the petitioner company could not approach Shri Haresh Kumar, Chartered Accountant to question his non responsiveness to the appeal or inform the outcome of the appeal. Left with no option, the petitioner company had to approach another Chartered Accountant Shri. U. Pradeep Kumar Chartered Accountant, to advise on this matter. Shri. CA.U. Pradeep Kumar Chartered Accountant after going through the relevant papers advised that an appeal has to be filed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 19.10.2023 and the same can be filed with a petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner then requested the office of Shri. CA.U. Pradeep Kumar Chartered Accountant to draft the appeal. The appeal was then drafted, sent for approval and signature of the petitioner and finally filed on 15.05.2026 with a delay of 879 days.

That it is most humbly submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal is neither wilful nor deliberate but due to genuine and bona fide reasons. Under these circumstances, the petitioner most humbly submits that the delay was purely due to genuine reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. Further, it is also most humbly stated that the petitioner company had not received an opportunity of being heard against the said addition either during the assessment nor during the first appeal proceedings.

Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee during the course of hearing submitted that the reasons as stated in the petition for condition of delay is the reason for the assessee not representing the case properly before the lower authorities. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee's ITBA access was deactivated and hence the assessee could not upload any details as called for. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the letters written to the AO in this regard. The Ld. AR accordingly prayed for one more opportunity with an undertaking that the assessee would represent the case properly. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice and fair play to represent the case properly by producing the required details. Accordingly, we remit the appeal back to the A.O with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with assessment proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

Further, we also levy a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) in each of the appeals since considerable time and efforts have been spent by the Exchequer and for the reason that the assessee being delinquent before the lower authorities. The same shall be paid by the assessee to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority at Hon’ble High Court of Madras within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and produce the receipt before the A.O.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.