ARULMIGU VANABADRA KALIAMMAN TEMPLE ,METTUPALAYAM, COIMBATORE vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1404/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 June 2026AY 2022-20234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to the delay and lack of a condonation petition. To meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for deciding the condonation application and disposing of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a temple, claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act. The CPC denied this exemption due to the non-filing of the audit report in Form 10B. The assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A) with a significant delay and without a proper condonation application.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) with a significant delay and without a proper condonation application should be admitted for adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11,Section 12A,Section 139(1),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T VARKEY & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 11.05.2026Pronounced: 08.06.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्याययर्क सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1404/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2022-23

Arulmigu Vanabadra Kaliamman The Income Tax Officer, Temple, vs. Coimbatore. Devikottam Thekkampatti, Nellithurai PO, Mettupalayam Tk, Coimbatore – 641 305. (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) [PAN: AAABA-0521-C] (अपीलाथी/Appellant)

अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. M. Karunantham, Advocate (Virtual) प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 11.05.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 08.06.2026 आदेश /O R D E R PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A)-4, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ld.CIT(A)”), dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee against the intimation order dated 13.06.2023

:-2-: ITA. No:1404/Chny/2026. passed by the CPC u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2022-23.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a temple under the control 2. of The Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The temple is a listed religious institution in terms of Section 45(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 (HR&CE Act) and has filed its return of income on 01.12.2022 for AY 2022-23, admitting a total income of Rs.NIL/- after claiming exemption of Rs.4,44,54,157/- u/s.11 of the Act. On perusal of the ITR, the AO found that the trust registered u/s.12A of the Act has not e-filed the Audit Report in Form 10B atleast one month prior to the due date for furnishing return u/s.139(1) of the Act. The CPC processed the return of income u/s.143(1) of the Act dated 13.06.2023 by denying the exemption u/s.11 of the Act and raised a demand of Rs.1,92,05,870/-

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 20.08.2025 with a delay in filing an appeal.

5.

At the outset, we observed that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee with a huge delay of more than two years without enclosing of reasons for condonation separately as mentioned in Form 35 before the first appellate authority. Further, the ld.CIT(A) provided several opportunities to the assessee to rectify the error in filing the appeal. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to the same. Hence, the ld.CIT(A), dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine by passing an order dated 09.02.2026. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

:-3-: ITA. No:1404/Chny/2026. 6. The ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the administrative office dealing with temple management under HR&CE, by oversight and with the limited tax expertise and relied on advisors who failed to act in time, made the assessee to file the appeal belatedly. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed for setting aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issue back to the AO as the assessment order was also passed without participation of the assessee. The ld.AR assured the bench that they will participate in the proceedings and cooperate to complete the assessment.

7.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee has been negligent in responding to the statutory notices and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

8.

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We note that the CPC issued an intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act which was not noticed by the assessee and filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of more than two years by mentioning that ‘the grounds of condonation is enclosed separately’ in the Form No 35 filed. However, the ld.CIT(A) found that no such condonation petition was filed, hence the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine as not admitted.

9.

In view of the above and to meet the ends of justice we set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of ld.CIT(A) and direct the assessee to file condonation application by explaining the delay in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) to decide the condonation application and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents if advised so.

:-4-: ITA. No:1404/Chny/2026. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the court on 08th June, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी वर्की ) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (ABY T VARKEY) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) न्याययर्क सदस्य/Judicial Member लेखासदस्य/Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, दिन ांक/Dated, the 08th June 2026 Devadas आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/Respondent 3.आयकर आयुक्त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. ववभागीय प्रनतननधि/DR 5. गार्ा फाईल/GF DEVADAS Digitally signed by DEVADAS GOPALANACHARY GOPALANACHARY Date: 2026.06.10 15:02:57 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 11

All 7,190 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →