SMSKP ARADHANA TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1,, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3754/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 August 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of the founder trustee and his unfamiliarity with electronic communication. The issue of expenses was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a religious trust, failed to obtain registration u/s. 12A and did not respond to notices. The Assessing Officer treated it as an AOP and made an addition under Section 68. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned and whether the assessee should be allowed an opportunity to submit details of expenses incurred.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12A,Section 68,Section 250

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. Chilaka Marthi Vijay Raju, Addl CIT

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order 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") dated 15.07.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.

2.

The assessee is a religious trust. For the year under consideration, the assessee did not possess the registration u/s. 12A of the Act. The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2020-21 on 30.03.2021 declaring Nil income.

ITA No.3754/Chny/2026 SMSKP Aradhana Trust :- 2 -:

The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. The assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the A.O and hence the A.O treated the assessee as AOP and made an addition u/s. 68 of the Act towards the total compensation received by the assessee during the year under consideration. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee did not file any further details before ethe CIT(A) and therefore the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3.

There is a delay of 273 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee has filed condonation petition/affidavit stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeal as extracted below:

“6. The Deponent submits that the Trust was founded by Shri P. V. Srinivasa Narayanan, an octogenarian, who was the Founder Trustee and Senior Managing Trustee of the Trust. He was personally supervising the religious activities of the Trust as well as all statutory and tax compliances including correspondence with the Income Tax Department. 7. The Deponent respectfully submits that, owing to his advanced age, Shri P. V. Srinivasa Narayanan was not fully conversant with electronic communications and the faceless compliance mechanism introduced by the Income Tax Department. In fact, while preferring the appeal before the Learned CIT(A), the Trust had specifically brought on record that several notices issued electronically during earlier proceedings could not be effectively attended to on account of the advanced age of the Founder Trustee and his unfamiliarity with electronic modes of communication. 8. Unfortunately, Shri P. V. Srinivasa Narayanan passed away in July 2024. His demise came as a sudden setback to the Trust. Since he was exclusively handling the affairs of the Trust and was the repository of all information relating to its tax matters and electronic communications, his demise resulted in considerable disruption in the administration and functioning of the Trust. 9. Thereafter, the affairs of the Trust came to be managed by the newly inducted incumbent. However, the new incumbent was not familiar with

ITA No.3754/Chny/2026 SMSKP Aradhana Trust :- 3 -:

the registered e-mail account, the Income Tax portal and the faceless appellate mechanism through which notices and communications were being issued by the Income Tax Department. Consequently, the notices issued by the Learned CIT(A) during the course of appellate proceedings remained unnoticed and no effective response could be furnished by the Deponent.

10.

In the above circumstances, the Learned CIT(A) proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex-parte vide Order dated 15.07.2025. The Deponent further submits that even the aforesaid appellate order was not noticed by the Trust since the same was electronically communicated to the registered e- mail account which had earlier been handled by the late Shri P. V. Srinivasa Narayanan. As such, the Deponent remained unaware of the passing of the appellate order and the consequential requirement of filing a further appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation.

11.

The existence of the appellate order came to the knowledge of the Deponent only recently when the auditors of the Trust identified the same through a software-enabled tax alert system while reviewing the tax records of the Trust. Until such discovery, the Deponent was unaware of the appellate order dated 15.07.2025 and the consequential requirement of preferring a further appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Immediately upon becoming aware of the appellate order, the Deponent contacted its professional advisors and initiated necessary steps for filing the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 12. Thereafter, the deponent had forwarded the Order of CIT(A) dated 15.07.2025 to their counsel Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A Partner of M/s. CNGSN Associated LLP, Chartered Accountants, Chennai on 19.06.2026upon whose advise, an appeal against the said Order before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is now being filed on 30.06.2026 with a delay of 273 days.

13.

For the aforesaid reasons, it is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the delay of 273days in filing the appeal was not wilful and wasdue to circumstances beyond the control of the Deponent.”

4.

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.

ITA No.3754/Chny/2026 SMSKP Aradhana Trust :- 4 -:

MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC), we condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

5.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the reasons as stated in the petition for condonation are the reason for non- appearance before the lower authorities. The Ld. AR fairly conceded that since the assessee does not possess the registration u/s. 12A of the Act for the year under consideration the treatment of the assessee as AOP is not contended. The Ld. AR however submitted that the A.O has treated the gross receipts as the addition whereas the assessee has incurred expenses which ought to be allowed. The Ld. AR in this regard drew our attention to the submission made in Form-35 filed before the CIT(A) where the assessee has stated that all the evidence pertaining to the expenses are available and that the same may be allowed to be submitted. The Ld. AR further undertook to file all the relevant details before the lower authorities if one more opportunity is given. From the orders of the lower authorities, we notice that the addition towards gross receipts have been made mainly since the assessee has not been submitting any details. We further notice that the assessee has submitted before the CIT(A) that the details pertaining to expenses would be submitted if allowed. 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 impugned issue/s back to the A.O with a direction to call for necessary details regarding the expenses and allow the deduction in accordance with law. The assessee is

ITA No.3754/Chny/2026 SMSKP Aradhana Trust :- 5 -:

directed to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with the proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 25th day of August, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक�) (पदमावती यस) (ABY. T. Varkey) (Padmavathy.S) लेखा सद�य /Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 25th August, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA आदेश क� ��त!ल"प अ#े"षत/Copy to: DURGA NARESH 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant Date: 2026.08.27 NARESH 2. ��थ�/Respondent 16:33:38 +05'30' 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 12A

All 6,064 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →