MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, KANYAKUMARI,THIRUVITHANCODE, KANYAKUMARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD, TIRUNELVELI, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TIRUNELVELI

ITA 3797/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 September 2026AY 2016-20174 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 151 days in filing the appeal, finding reasonable and sufficient cause, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471). The Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and in the interest of natural justice, granted the assessee one more opportunity to represent its case properly. The impugned issues were remitted back to the AO with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law. The assessee was directed to submit required details and cooperate with the proceedings. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was levied on the assessee for the time and effort spent by the Exchequer and for the assessee's delinquency before the lower authorities, payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority within one month. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Muslim Educational Society, an educational trust, failed to file its return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessing Officer (AO) received information about a cash deposit of Rs. 1,28,81,446/-. The AO reopened the assessment under Section 148. The assessee did not respond to the AO's notices, leading to an addition of Rs. 2,40,31,137/- under Section 69A. The assessee also failed to appear before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), resulting in an ex-parte dismissal of its appeal. The assessee's appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was filed with a delay of 151 days, attributed to the managing trustee's medical treatment and subsequent absence from office.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 151 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is liable to be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? 2. Whether the assessee is entitled to another opportunity to represent its case before the lower authorities, given the circumstances of non-appearance? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the managing trustee's medical treatment, and he was solely responsible for tax matters. The non-response to lower authorities was also attributed to his absence. The assessee further contended that its counsel did not provide adequate professional support, hindering proper representation. The assessee prayed for one more opportunity. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay or the prayer for another opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI & MS. PADMAVATHY.S

For Respondent: Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT

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 14.11.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. Muslim Educational Society :- 2 -:

2.

The assessee is an educational trust existing solely for the purpose of education. The assessee did not file the return of income for th

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →