DHARMAPURAM ADHEENAM,NAGAPATTINAM vs. ITO, WX-21,, NAGAPATTINAM

आयकरअपील�यअ�धकरण ’बी’ �यायपीठ,चे�नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI �ी इंतूरी रामा राव लेखासद� एवं �ी मनु कुमार िग�र, �ाियक सद� BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 3521 & 3522/Chny/2026 �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 DHARMAPURAM ADHEENAM, v. The Income Tax Officer, 11, Adheenam, Mayiladuthurai,, WX-21, Nagapattinam Nagapattinam, Tamil Nadu, 609001 [PAN: AABTD5649M] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Assessee)

अपीलाथ� क ओर से/ Appellant by : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Adv ��यथ� क ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. S. Sundar Rajan, CIT सुनवाई क तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 25.08.2026 घोषणा क तार�ख /Date of : 02.11.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the ld. CIT(A)”], both dated 17.01.2026, confirming the assessment orders passed u/s. 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2015-16 and 2016-17.

ITA No. 3521 & 3522/Chny/2026 (AY 2015-16 & 2016-17) Dharmapuram Adheenam. Vs. ITO WX-21 :: 2 :: 2. The assessee has raised the following identical grounds of appeal for both assessment years: 1. The Learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the appellant on the grounds of limitation without considering the grounds raised on merits of the case. 2. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have remanded the matter back to the Assessing officer as the assessment order was an exparte order and ought to have granted one more opportunity of hearing to the Appellant before the officer to enable the appellant to file necessary documents and making its submissions ON MERITS 3. The Respondent officer failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant is a mutt engaged in public religious worship and is under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Government of Tamilnadu. 4. The Respondent failed to appreciate that the appellant had been granted registration U/s 12A way back in 12.1.2006 with effect from 1998-99. CASH DEPOSITS - ANONYMOUS DONATIONS EXEMPTED U/s 115BBC 5. The learned CIT(A) failed to see that the cash deposits are nothing but the voluntary donations being anonymous donations received by wholly religious institutions shall remain exempt from tax U/s 115BBC of the Act and provision of S 69A is inapplicable 6. The Respondent ought to have appreciated that the appellant administers the temple engaged in public religious worship, which is clearly evidenced by the fact that it is under the control of The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department of the Government of Tamilnadu and the accounts of the appellant are being audited by the HR & CE, in such circumstances the sources of bank deposits and the fixed deposits cannot be treated as unexplained money and brought to tax U/s 69A at any stretch of imagination. SEC.69 CANNOT BE INVOKED ON THE APPELLANT

ITA No. 3521 & 3522/Chny/2026 (AY 2015-16 & 2016-17) Dharmapuram Adheenam. Vs. ITO WX-21 :: 3 :: 7. The Respondent being well aware that the appellant is entitled for exemption has unlawfully brought the entire cash deposits of the mutt to tax as unexplained money U/s 69A. 8. The Respondent ought to have verified from the returns of the earlier years that the appellant's income is from rent from properties held by the trust, agricultural income and interest income which are utilized for performing the objects of the Trust and are not unexplained money at any stretch of imagination. FAO/JAO TO JURISDCITION TO CONDUCT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS 9. The Learned CIT(A) failed to see that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO and FAO for issuance of reopening notice u/s. 148 or even for passing assessment or reassessment order and it is only FAO who could issue notice u/s. 148 and not JAO ought to have been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer only and places reliance on judgement of Hexaware Technologies .v. ACIT, [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) For these and other grounds that may be raised at the time of hearing, it in prayed that the assessment order is set aside and the appeal allowed.

ITA No. 3521 & 3522/Chny/2026 (AY 2015-16 & 2016-17) Dharmapuram Adheenam. Vs. ITO WX-21 :: 4 :: letters and show-cause notices u/s. 144 dated 31.01.2023 and 23.02.2023, the assessee failed to furnish its return of income or supporting documentary evidence explaining the source of cash deposits and the interest and rental income. In the absence of compliance, the AO treated the cash deposits of Rs.3,00,14,684/- as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act, taxed interest income of Rs.6,02,688/- under the head “Income from Other Sources” u/s. 56 and assessed rental income of Rs.1,33,440/- under the head “Income from House Property”. Accordingly, the total income was assessed at Rs.3,07,10,780/- vide order dated 13.03.2023 passed u/s. 147 read with section 144 of the Act. For AY 2016-17: The assessee did not file its return of income for AY 2016-17. Based on information available with the Department under its risk management strategy, the AO noticed that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.2,75,48,634/- in its savings bank account maintained with Indian Bank during the financial year 2015-16. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 dated 20.03.2023 was issued and reassessment proceedings were initiated u/s. 147 of the Act. Despite repeated statutory notices u/s. 142(1), communications and a show-cause notice dated 12.12.2023, the assessee failed to furnish its return of income or documentary evidence explaining the source of the cash deposits. In the absence of compliance, the AO treated the entire cash deposits of Rs.2,75,48,634/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A, chargeable to tax u/s. 115BBE of the Act. The total income was accordingly assessed at Rs.2,75,48,634/- vide order dated 25.01.2024 passed u/s. 147 read with sections 144 and 144B

ITA No. 3521 & 3522/Chny/2026 (AY 2015-16 & 2016-17) Dharmapuram Adheenam. Vs. ITO WX-21 :: 5 :: of the Act. Penalty proceedings were also initiated under the relevant provisions of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeals before the ld. CIT(A), with delays stated to be 321 days and 380 days for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17, respectively. The ld.CIT(A), after considering the reasons for condonation of delay, held that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals. Accordingly, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed both appeals in limine as barred by limitation, without adjudicating the grounds relating to the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the additions made by the AO on merits. Aggrieved by the orders of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeals before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the ld.CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals on the ground of limitation without considering the issues raised on merits. It was submitted that the assessee is a Mutt/temple engaged in public religious worship, functioning under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, and that registration u/s. 12A had been granted on 12.01.2006 with effect from AY 1998-99. With regard to AY 2015- 16, the assessee explained that the assessment order dated 13.03.2023 was received by email on the same date. The appeal was required to be filed within the prescribed period, i.e., on or before 12.04.2023. However, the temple authorities required considerable time to trace the relevant financial records and the registration certificate u/s. 12A, as called for by the Authorised Representative for preparing the appeal. The requisite documents were furnished only on 22.12.2023, following which the appeal was

ITA No. 3521 & 3522/Chny/2026 (AY 2015-16 & 2016-17) Dharmapuram Adheenam. Vs. ITO WX-21 :: 6 :: prepared and filed on 05.02.2024. It was contended that the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate. The ld. AR further submitted that the cash deposits represented voluntary donations received by a wholly religious institution and, therefore, the applicability of section 115BBC and the additions made u/s. 69/69A required examination in the light of the nature and activities of the assessee. It was also contended that the sources of the deposits required verification with reference to the assessee’s records, accounts and supporting evidence. The ld. AR accordingly prayed that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee to furnish the relevant documents and supporting evidence before the ld. CIT(A), and that the appeals be adjudicated on merits after condoning the delay. 5. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, supported the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR submitted that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeals and, therefore, the dismissal of the appeals as barred by limitation did not call for any interference. Accordingly, the ld. DR prayed for dismissal of both appeals. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue for our consideration is whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the issues raised by the assessee on merits. We find that the assessments for both years were completed ex parte u/s. 147 read with section 144 of the Act, primarily on account of the assessee’s failure to respond to the statutory notices and furnish the requisite details. The additions substantially relate to cash deposits in the bank accounts of the

ITA No. 3521 & 3522/Chny/2026 (AY 2015-16 & 2016-17) Dharmapuram Adheenam. Vs. ITO WX-21 :: 7 :: assessee, which claims to be a religious institution registered u/s. 12A of the Act. The assessee has explained that the delay in filing the appeals occurred because the relevant financial records and registration documents had to be traced and collected by the temple authorities before the appeals could be prepared. It has also submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and that denial of an opportunity to contest the additions would cause prejudice to its case. In our considered view, the controversy raised by the assessee involves issues requiring examination of the relevant facts and supporting documents, including the nature and source of the cash deposits, the activities of the assessee, its registration u/s. 12A and the applicability of the relevant provisions of the Act. These issues have not been adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A), as both appeals were dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation. 7. Considering the explanation furnished by the assessee, the nature of the dispute and the fact that the appeals have not been adjudicated on merits, we are of the view that substantial justice would be served by providing the assessee an effective opportunity to present its case before the ld. CIT(A). The matter, therefore, deserves to be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 and restore both appeals to the file of the ld. CIT(A), with a direction to condone the delay in filing the appeals and adjudicate the appeals on merits, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

ITA No. 3521 & 3522/Chny/2026 (AY 2015-16 & 2016-17) Dharmapuram Adheenam. Vs. ITO WX-21 :: 8 :: 8. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the appellate proceedings and furnish all relevant documents, explanations and supporting evidence as may be required by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) shall consider the grounds raised by the assessee, including the legal grounds challenging the reassessment proceedings and the grounds relating to the additions made by the AO, and decide the same in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions or the legal grounds raised by the assessee, which shall be examined independently by the ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the above directions. Order pronounced in the open court on the 2nd day of November, 2026 in Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (इंतूरी रामा राव) (मनु कुमार िग�र) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद*य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद*य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे�नई/Chennai, Digitally signed SANDEE +दनांक/Dated: 2nd November, 2026. by SANDEEP SNDP, Sr. PS KUMAR P KUMAR Date: 2026.11.06 आदेश क ��त,ल-प अ.े-षत/Copy to: 09:54:40 +05'30' 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF