ARUL MIGU GANGADHARESWAER TEMPLE,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI

ITA 4342/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 October 2026AY 2017-184 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that while the assessee's attitude in not filing a proper condonation petition was deprecable, the FAA erred by dismissing the appeals in limine without affording an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the principles of natural justice mandate that an assessee should be given a chance to explain the reasons for delay before an appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the ITAT restored the matters to the file of the FAA. The assessee was directed to file a proper petition for condonation of delay with supporting materials. The FAA is to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and then adjudicate the condonation petition in accordance with law. If the delay is condoned, the FAA shall decide the appeals on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Arulmigu Gangadhareswaer Temple, filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16, and 2017-18. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismissed these appeals in limine due to significant delays of 141 days, 338 days, and 2050 days, respectively. The FAA noted that the assessee had not provided specific reasons for the delay in Form 35 or in any separate submission, and thus, did not condone the delay. The assessee appealed these orders to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the FAA was justified in dismissing the appeals in limine without adjudicating on merits, solely on the grounds of delay, and without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that while there was a delay, the reasons for condonation were indicated 'As per Annexure' in Form 35 for some assessment years and a separate petition was filed for AY 2017-18. They contended that the FAA should have issued a defect notice or provided an opportunity to file the condonation petition before dismissing the appeals. The assessee relied on the principles of natural justice. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records that the Learned Departmental Representative (DR) was heard, but does not detail their specific arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Hearing: 12.10.2026Pronounced: 13.10.2026

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, ‘बी’ �यायपीठ, चे�नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी जॉज� जॉज� के, उपा�य� एवं �ी गगन गोयल, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos: 4340, 4341 & 4342/CHNY/2026 �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2017-18 M/s. Arulmigu The Income Tax Officer, Gangadhareswaer Temple, Vs. Exemptions Ward 2, 131, Gangadhareswarer Koil Street, Chennai Purasawalkam, Chennai – 625 020. PAN: AACTA 8981E (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Ms.G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri J. Nagaraj, JCIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 12.10.2026 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 13.10.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against three orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 02.06.2026 / 27.05.2026, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2017-18.

- 2 - ITA Nos.4340 to 4342/CHNY/2026 Arulmigu Gangadhareswaer Temple 2. At the very outset, we notice that First Appellate Authority (FAA) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine without adjudicating on merits. The FAA held that there is a delay of 141 days, 338 days & 2050 days in filing these appeals before him and the assessee has not filed any specific reasons for delay neither in Form 35 nor any separate submission. Since the assessee has failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay, the FAA dismissed the appeals.

Aggrieved by the orders of the FAA, the assessee filed the present appeals before the Tribunal. Before us, the Ld.AR submitted that in Form 35, the assessee has stated that there is delay in filing the appeal and with respect to the grounds for condonation of delay, the assessee submitted ‘As per Annexure’ in AYs 2013-14, 2015-16 and for AY 2017-18, the assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay. However, while filing Form 35, the assessee had inadvertently failed to file the petitions for condonation of delay vide separate sheet. It was further submitted by the Ld.AR, that the FAA ought to have provided an opportunity to the assessee to file condonation application for the delay in filing the appeals, before dismissing the appeals in limine.

- 3 - ITA Nos.4340 to 4342/CHNY/2026 Arulmigu Gangadhareswaer Temple 4. The Ld.DR was duly heard.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The FAA had dismissed the appeals of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay of 141 days, 338 days & 2050 days in filing the appeals. On perusal of the orders of FAA, we note that assessee has not filed any specific reasons for delay neither in Form 35 nor any separate submission. It was the contention of the Ld.AR that the assessee while filing Form 35 inadvertently failed to attached the petitions for condonation vide separate sheet. We strongly deprecate the nonchalant attitude of the assessee in not filing a proper condonation petition before the FAA. At the same time, it is noticed that the FAA, without issuing any defect notice or affording an opportunity to the assessee to explain the reasons for the delay, proceeded to dismiss the appeals. The principles of natural justice require that an opportunity should be granted to the assessee to explain as to why the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned. In the present case, no such opportunity appears to have been provided by the FAA. Therefore, in the interest of justice and equity, we deem it fit to restore the matter to the file of the FAA. The assessee is directed to file a proper petition for

- 4 - ITA Nos.4340 to 4342/CHNY/2026 Arulmigu Gangadhareswaer Temple condonation of delay, along with supporting materials and on receipt of the same, the FAA shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter adjudicate the condonation petition in accordance with law. In the event the FAA is satisfied with the reasons furnished for the belated filing of the appeals, the FAA shall proceed to decide the appeals on merits in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13th October,2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (गगन गोयल) (GEORGE GEORGE K) (GAGAN GOYAL) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 13th October, 2026 RSR, Sr.PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त /CIT, Chennai 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF. By Order Digitally signed by REKHA REKHA SENTHIL RAJ SENTHIL RAJ Date: 2026.10.15 10:00:00 +05'30'

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →