PONNAMMAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST,TIRUVALLUR vs. DCIT/ACIT,EXEMPTIONS,CHENNAI, CHENNAI

आयकरअपील�यअ�धकरण ’बी’ �यायपीठ,चे�नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI �ी मनुकुमारिग�र, �ाियक सद� एवं �ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा लेखासद� BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1858/Chny/2026 �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Years: 2022-23 PONNAMMAL EDUCATIONAL v. The Dy. CIT/ACIT, TRUST Exemptions, Sapthagiri nagar, Opp ARS Chennai-600034 Garden, Behind Hotel Saravana Bhavan, Arcot Road, Valasaravakkam,Alwarthirunagar S.O, Alwarthirunagar TIRUVALLUR 600087 [PAN: AAATP 5361 P] (अपीलाथ�\Appellant) (��यथ�\Respondent)

अपीलाथ� क ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. V Balaji, CA ��यथ� क ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. T.M. Suganthamala,CIT सुनवाई क तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 11.08.2026 घोषणा क तार�ख /Date of : 14.10.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "the Ld. CIT(A)"], dated 12.01.2026, confirming the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the

ITA No. 1858/Chny/2026 (AY 2022 23) Ponnammal Educational Trust Vs DCIT/ACIT (E) :: 2 :: Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), for the Assessment Year ("AY") 2022-23. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal as under: - 1. The impugned order of the Ld AO and which has been upheld by the Ld CIT(A) is contrary to the law facts and circumstances of the case and is violative of the principles of equity and natural justice and is liable to be quashed as the assessment was completed without providing adequate opportunity and without considering the explanations and the evidences furnished by the Appellant. 2. The Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the Ld AO has travelled beyond his jurisdiction while reopening the assessment. 3. The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 18,00,000/- being payment made to the Managing Trustee as remuneration as excessive without bring any material on record to substantiate it and also failed to appreciate that the Trustee has receiving the amount for the first time. 4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 18,00,000/- being payment made to the Managing Trustee as remuneration as excessive without appreciating that the appellant Trust has been running four schools at different places which has been supervised and managed by the Managing Trustee. 5. The Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 18,00,000/- being payment made to the Managing Trustee as remuneration as excessive without appreciating the fact that there is no such remark in the Audit report filed in Form 10B of the appellant Trust. 6. The Ld CIT(A) has upheld the treatment of the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- received as donation as anonymous by the Ld AO merely because the appellant has not provided the details of the donor without appreciating the fact that there is a change in the

ITA No. 1858/Chny/2026 (AY 2022 23) Ponnammal Educational Trust Vs DCIT/ACIT (E) :: 3 :: management and the appellant could not furnish the details as they are not aware of the proceedings itself. 7. The Ld CIT(A) has upheld the treatment of the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- received as donation as anonymous by the Ld AO without appreciating the fact that there is no such remark in the Audit report filed in Form 10B of the appellant Trust. 8. The Ld CIT(A) has failed to understand that the appellant has been running schools and the donation has been applied for charitable purpose. 9. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 3,55,70,186/- made towards repairs and maintenance as excessive without appreciating the fact the appellant is a charitable trust been running four schools at different places has been claiming deduction under section Section 11 of the Act which is a self contained code. 10.The Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 3,55,70,186/- made towards repairs and maintenance as excessive without appreciating the fact the appellant is a charitable trust and has been incurring the same quantum of expenditure in the previous year also. 11.The Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of Rs. 3,55,70,186/- made towards repairs and maintenance as excessive without appreciating the fact that there is nothing was brought on record that such repairs and maintenance were applied for the objects of the Trust. 12.The Ld CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the entire amount of repairs and maintenance without considering the fact that in the audit report in Form 10B it has been mentioned as application of income towards the charitable objects of the Trust ie running of schools. 13. The appellant craves the indulgence of this Honble Tribunal to amend alter supplement the above grounds and add such other grounds as may be raised during the course of hearing.

ITA No. 1858/Chny/2026 (AY 2022 23) Ponnammal Educational Trust Vs DCIT/ACIT (E) :: 4 :: 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an educational trust running four schools and had filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income at Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, determining the total assessed income at Rs.4,66,12,050/-. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made, inter alia, disallowances in respect of remuneration of Rs.18,00,000/- paid to the Managing Trustee, anonymous donations of Rs.20,00,000/- resulting in an addition of Rs.19,00,000/- and expenditure claimed towards repairs and maintenance amounting to Rs.3,55,70,186/- besides other adjustments. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). During the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed written submissions explaining the circumstances surrounding the claims made in the return of income and contended that it had been unable to furnish the requisite details and supporting documents before the Assessing Officer owing to a change in management and difficulties in accessing the relevant communications and records. The assessee also sought consideration of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, the ld. CIT(A), observing that the assessee had failed to substantiate its claims with adequate documentary evidence, confirmed the relevant additions and disallowances.

ITA No. 1858/Chny/2026 (AY 2022 23) Ponnammal Educational Trust Vs DCIT/ACIT (E) :: 5 :: Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The principal issue requiring consideration at this stage is whether the assessee should be afforded a further opportunity to substantiate its claims by furnishing the relevant documentary evidence and whether the matter warrants reconsideration by the ld. CIT(A). 6. On perusal of the impugned order, we observe that the assessee had filed written submissions before the ld. CIT(A), explaining its claims and seeking consideration of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The assessee had, inter alia, contended that it was running four schools and that the expenditure claimed towards repairs and maintenance was incurred in furtherance of its charitable objects. It had also sought to explain the remuneration paid to the Managing Trustee and the donations received during the year under consideration. The ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the assessee's contentions primarily on the ground that the requisite documentary evidence had not been furnished in support of the claims made. The assessee has explained that, owing to a change in management and difficulties in accessing the relevant records and communications, it could not effectively furnish the necessary details and supporting evidence before the lower authorities. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that, in the interest of substantial justice, the assessee deserves one more effective

ITA No. 1858/Chny/2026 (AY 2022 23) Ponnammal Educational Trust Vs DCIT/ACIT (E) :: 6 :: opportunity to substantiate its claims with the relevant documentary evidence. 7. We make it clear that the assessee cannot claim an automatic entitlement to admission of additional evidence merely by invoking Rule 46A. The ld. CIT(A) shall examine the assessee's request for admission of additional evidence in accordance with the conditions prescribed under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, record appropriate reasons, wherever required, and afford the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine such evidence and furnish a remand report in accordance with the applicable provisions. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the additions and disallowances made in the assessment, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The ld. CIT(A) shall afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity to furnish the relevant documents and supporting evidence in respect of the claims raised in the appeal, consider the request for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A in accordance with law, and examine the assessee's contentions on merits after providing due opportunity to the Assessing Officer wherever required. 9. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings, furnish the relevant documentary evidence and explanations within the time allowed, and avoid seeking

ITA No. 1858/Chny/2026 (AY 2022 23) Ponnammal Educational Trust Vs DCIT/ACIT (E) :: 7 :: unnecessary adjournments. The ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee afresh, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned and speaking order after considering the material available on record and the submissions of both parties. All issues are left open for adjudication on merits. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the 14th day of October, 2026 in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, +दनांक/Dated: 14th October 2026 SANDEE Digitally signed by SNDP, Sr. PS SANDEEP KUMAR P KUMAR Date: 2026.10.16 आदेश क ��त,ल-प अ.े-षत/Copy to: 11:29:46 +05'30' 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF