ARULMIGU SELVAKUMARASWAMY THIRUKKOIL,TIRUPPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS), COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3770/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 August 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the issues back to the AO. The AO was directed to call for necessary details and decide the issues in accordance with law, providing an opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a temple, failed to file its return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment and made an addition of Rs. 18,81,539/- as unexplained money due to non-response. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a significant delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to the temple's management structure and procedural issues, and whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,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 20.05.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.

2.

The assessee is a temple dedicated to Lord Murugan. The A.O received information that the assessee has made cash deposit amounting to

ITA No.3770/Chny/2026 Arulmigu Selvakumaraswamy Thirukkoil :- 2 -:

Rs.11,03,137/- and has also had received interest from banks. Since the assessee did not file the return of income, the A.O reopened the assessment by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee did not file the return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act and the assessee also did not respond to any of the notices issued. Therefore, the A.O made an addition of Rs.18,81,539/- towards the entire credits in the bank account as unexplained money. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay of 989 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that the temple is managed by HR & CE Department and the persons managing do not have technical knowledge. The assessee has also submitted that the Executive Officer of the temple changed and hence the details pertaining to the income tax proceedings were not properly communicated. The assessee also submitted that HR & CE Department provided circulars on filing of return of income and filing of appeal only in March, 2024 and based on our internal communications from HR&CE Department the assessee has commenced the process of filing of appeal. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee and is not intentional. The CIT(A) however did not accept the submissions of the assessee and dismissed the appeal in limine. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) with regard to delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. AR further submitted that the temple being managed by HR & CE Department and the appointment of persons to manage the affairs often

ITA No.3770/Chny/2026 Arulmigu Selvakumaraswamy Thirukkoil :- 3 -:

undergone change. The Ld. AR also submitted that the delay in filing the appeal being due to the action of the HR&CE Department which is beyond the control of the assessee prayed that a liberal view may be taken for condoning the delay. Considering the facts and circumstances peculiar to assessee's case and in the interest of natural justice, we are inclined to give one more opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remit the impugned issues back to the AO with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issues in accordance with law. The assessee is required to submit the necessary details as may be called for and cooperate with the proceedings. It is ordered accordingly.

4.

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 Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA EJTADA DURGA NARESH आदेश क� ��त!ल"प अ#े"षत/Copy to: NARESH Date: 2026.08.27 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 16:35:29 +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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →