AM NEELEVANESWARAR THIRUKOIL,TRICHY vs. ACIT EXEMPTIONS, COIMBATORE

ITA 3362/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 October 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to present the appeals within the statutory period. Regarding the substantive issues, the Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders due to the assessee's non-participation. While the assessee raised contentions regarding eligibility for exemptions under Circular No. 1/2015, Section 11(5), and Section 12(2)(A), the Tribunal did not decide these on merits. Instead, to meet the ends of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The AO was directed to frame assessment orders after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, who was advised to be diligent and file written submissions and relevant documents. The Tribunal levied a cost of Rs. 15,000/- on the assessee for its non-participation before the lower authorities.

What were the facts?

The assessee, AM Neelevaneswarar Thirukoil, a temple under the control of the Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Department of Tamil Nadu, filed three appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - NFAC, Delhi. These orders, dated 10.12.2025, confirmed the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years (AY) 2016-17, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The AO had made additions of Rs. 1,89,95,314/-, Rs. 2,13,47,993/-, and Rs. 2,75,43,255/- respectively, as unexplained investment/income. The appeals were filed with a delay of 95 days, attributed to the negligence of a taxation consultant. The assessee had not filed returns for AY 2016-17, 2018-19, and 2019-20, and failed to respond to notices from the AO and the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals by the assessee should be condoned, considering the explanation provided regarding the negligence of their taxation consultant. 2. Whether the assessee is eligible for exemption under Circular No. 1/2015 and Section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for its fixed deposits, and thus should not be treated as unexplained income. 3. Whether the assessee is eligible for exemptions contemplated under Section 12(2)(A) of the Act. Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to consider its entitlement to exemption under Circular No. 1/2015. It further contended that the fixed deposits were in accordance with Section 11(5) of the Act and should not be treated as unexplained income, and that it was eligible for exemptions under Section 12(2)(A). The assessee prayed for setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitting the issues to the AO for one more opportunity. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that both the AO and the CIT(A) provided sufficient opportunities, but the assessee was negligent in responding to notices, and therefore, the orders should be confirmed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 133(6),Section 69,Section 11(5),Section 12(2)(A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 09.09.2026Pronounced: 07.10.2026

PER S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM:

These three appeals of the assessee are filed against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short ‘ld.CIT(A)’) for the assessment years (in short ‘A.Y’) 2016-17, 2018-19 and 2019-20, vide all the orders dated 10.12.2025 against the assessment orders passed by the AO

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →