ARULUMIGU RAJAGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE,CUDDALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, CUAALORE, CUDDALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3651/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 October 2026AY 2020-214 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 153 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), acknowledging the assessee's status as a public charitable and religious trust and the administrative changes within its management. The Tribunal found it unacceptable that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the grounds on merits. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the assessee did not receive a proper opportunity before the AO. Citing the Supreme Court decision in TIN Box Co. v. CIT, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the assessment to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present relevant documents before the AO and expressed trust that the appointed chartered accountant would ensure necessary compliance. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Arulmigurajagopalaswamy Temple, a public charitable and religious trust, failed to file its return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 148, issuing a notice on March 29, 2024. The assessee filed a return on June 13, 2024, declaring an income of Rs. 4,55,763/-. The AO, noting the assessee's failure to explain various transactions totaling Rs. 86,51,869/-, including time deposits of Rs. 23 lakhs, treated them as unexplained investments under Section 69 and disallowed expenses of Rs. 11,24,773/-. The total income was determined at Rs. 38,80,536/-. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], but the appeal was dismissed in limine due to a 153-day delay in filing, without considering the merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay of 153 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) for AY 2020-21, considering the assessee is a public charitable and religious trust with administrative changes? (Question of law and fact, turning on the Tribunal's powers of condonation and the nature of the assessee). 2. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits, thereby denying the assessee an opportunity to be heard? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that frequent changes in temple management and Executive Officers, appointed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, led to difficulties in statutory compliances. An affidavit was filed by a chartered accountant, who has been empanelled by the Government, undertaking to appear before tax authorities. The assessee relied on the fact that it is an ancient public charitable and religious trust established in 1950. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue regarding the delay or the merits of the case before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69,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

Hearing: 28.08.2026Pronounced: 12.10.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee-Temple against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), Delhi, dated 25.11.2025 for AY 2020-21 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act). 2. Brief facts of this case are that the AO noticed that the assessee- Temple did not file its return for AY 2020-21, but he received information that assessee has entered into various financial transactions amounting to

ITA 3651 /Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) ARULMIGU RAJAGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE :: 2 :: Rs.86,51,869/-. Hence, he reopened the assessment of assessee by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 29.03.2024 for AY 2020-21. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income on 13.06.2024 declaring income of Rs.4,55,763/-. According to the AO, despite giving several opportunities during the assessment proceedings, the assessee didn’t bother to explain the nature and source of the various transactions which details he captured in Para 1 of the Assessment Order. According to the AO, assessee didn’t give the details and necessary answers, along with supporting documents for explaining the nature & source of the time deposits to the tune of Rs.23 lakhs and hence, he treated the same as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. Thereafter, he disallowed the expenses to the tune of Rs.11,24,773/- and determined the total income at Rs.38,80,536/- by passing the assessment order on 11.02.2025.

3.

Aggrieved the assessee, preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who noted that the appeal has been filed belatedly by 153 days and hence, he refused to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before him and dismissed in limine the appeal without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Aggrieved the assessee is before us.

4.

Heard both parties and perused the records. It is noted that the assessee-Temple is a ‘Public Charitable and Religious Trust’ established on 1st April, 1950 and operates as an ancient Temple. The functioning of the assessee-Temple is under the administrative/supervisory control of the Executive Officer appointed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments department (HR&CE). The accounts of the assessee are audited by the audit team of the Government of Tamil Nadu as per the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. According to the assessee, the temple management and

ITA 3651 /Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) ARULMIGU RAJAGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE :: 3 :: Executive Officer changes on year-to-year basis and in assessee’s case, even during the mid-year there was changes in the temple management/Executive Officer. Due to the frequent changes in management/Executive Officer the statutory compliances could not be effectively carried out hence, now the Tamil Nadu Government has streamlined the statutory compliances to be made of the assessee-Temple by entrusting the same to selected/approved panels of auditors. Hence, according to the assessee, one Anantha Narayanan Jagannathan, partner of J.V. Ramanujam & CO. Chartered Accountants has been empaneled auditors of HR & CE Government of Tamil Nadu for the years 2026-28 and accordingly has been entrusted the case of the assessee-Temple for compliance before the Income Tax Authorities. Hence, before us, an affidavit has been filed by the Shri. Anantha Narayanan Jagannathan, C.A dated 20.08.2026 undertaking to appear before the Income Tax Authorities/G.S.T. etc. In the light of the aforesaid affidavit filed by the Shri. Anantha Narayanan Jagannathan, C.A, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee considering the fact that the assessee is a ‘Public Charitable and Religious Trust’ established wayback in 1950. Hence, we condone the delay of 153 days in fling of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A); and further, noticing that Ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, we can’t countenance it.

5.

Further considering the fact that the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO during the assessment proceedings we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present the relevant documents before the AO. For such an action, we rely on the decision of the of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC) and set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of AO

ITA 3651 /Chny/2026 (AY 2020-21) ARULMIGU RAJAGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE :: 4 :: for de nova assessment. And before parting, we hope and trust that Shri. Anantha Narayanan Jagannathan, C.A, [representing the Firm J.V. Ramanujam & CO. Chartered Accountants] will represent the assessee- Temple before the AO in income tax assessment and ensure necessary compliance without fail. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the 12th day of October 2026, in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/-

(प�ावती .एस) (एबी टी. वक�) (PADMAVATHY. S) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 12th October, 2026. YS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF YASHVI Digitally signed by YASHVIR SINGH R SINGH Date: 2026.10.16 11:35:47 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →