CHENNAI NANBARGAL NALA MANDRAM,CHENNAI vs. CIT EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI

Since issues raised in both the appeals of the assessee are

First we take up ITA No. 3347/Chny/2026.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 02 days. The

At the outset, ld.AR, Ms. Divya, CA, drew our attention to the para no.4.3 of the impugned order and submits that the assessee’s objects are relief of the poor, education and medical relief. Further, she drew our attention to the para no.4.7.3 of the impugned order and submits that the ld.CIT(E) held the activities of the assessee does not engage itself in any of the activities relating to charities in the absence of necessary documentary evidences in support of its claim. She prayed to give one more opportunity for the assessee to furnish necessary documentary evidences and prayed to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(E).

The ld.DR, Ms. R. Anita, CIT, vehemently opposed the same. She argued that the ld.CIT(E) afforded many opportunities, but no valid

After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, we note that the assessee stated that its objects are relief for the poor in the field of education and medical relief. But, however, as it appears from the impugned order that the ld.CIT(E) held the said activities are not in the relief to the poor basing on the material evidences on record. On perusal of the para no. 4.7.3 of the impugned order, the ld.CIT(E) clearly held that the applicant has failed to furnish necessary documents that it has conducted medical camps etc for the benefit of public at large. Further, applicant also failed to furnish necessary documents and evidences in support of its claim and therefore, taking into consideration the said findings of the ld.CIT(E), we are of the considered view that the assessee shall get another opportunity to furnish necessary documents as undertaken by the ld.AR. Thus, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(E) for his fresh consideration and the

Now let us take ITA No. 3348/Chny/2026. 9. We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 02 days. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons to condone the said delay. On perusal of the same and upon hearing both the parties, we find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented the assessee in filing the appeal in time. Thus, delay of 02 days condoned.

Therefore, considering the submissions of the ld.AR and the ld.DR and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we note that the issue in present appeal is connected to the issue in ITA No. 3347/Chny/2026 wherein, we decided to remand the issue therein to the file of the ld.CIT(E), following the same view taken in ITA No. 3347/Chny/2026 in the aforementioned paras, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(E) for a fresh consideration. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, order of the ld.CIT(E) is set aside and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 31st August, 2026 at Chennai.