M/S.ARULMIGU SANGAMESWARAR THIRUKOVIL,ERODE vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS,, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3661/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 November 2026AY 2015-166 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 90-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's inability to present the appeal within the statutory period. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that the matter was squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in K 1006 Singanallur Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. v. PCIT. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a charitable trust that obtained registration under Section 12AB with a new PAN (AADTA0238P) but had not updated the PAN in its bank accounts, leading to transactions being linked to the old, un-surrendered PAN (AAATE2118F). The AO had completed the assessment under the old PAN, and the CIT(A) had confirmed this order. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to frame a de novo assessment under the new PAN (AADTA0238P) in accordance with the law. The assessee was also directed to surrender the old PAN and update it with the latest PAN used for registration. The AO was instructed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Stay Application was dismissed as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Arulmigu Sangameswarar Thirukovil, a charitable trust, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] dated 09.01.2026, which upheld the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) Exemptions, Coimbatore, dated 31.03.2023. The assessment year in question is 2015-16. The appeal was filed with a delay of 90 days, which the Tribunal condoned. The assessee, a temple under the HR&CE Department of Tamil Nadu, did not file its original return. The AO reopened the case under Section 147, noting substantial cash and time deposits linked to an old PAN (AAATE2118F). The assessee later filed a return declaring Nil income under this old PAN, which was obtained in 1976. The AO made additions of Rs. 2,82,55,753/- under Section 69A, Rs. 84,42,197/- under Section 69, and Rs. 11,493/- under Section 56, totaling Rs. 2,82,55,753/-, as unexplained money, unexplained investment, and income from other sources, respectively, linking these to the old PAN. The assessee had also obtained a new PAN (AADTA0238P) in 2006, but the transactions were linked to the old, un-surrendered PAN. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 90 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is to be condoned? (Procedural Issue) 2. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Sections 69A, 69, and 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are valid when the assessee holds two PANs and the transactions were linked to an older, un-surrendered PAN, while a newer PAN was used for registration under Section 12A? (Mixed Law and Fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that a receipt cannot be taxed merely because an assessee holds two PANs. - There was a failure to examine the receipts in an assessment pertaining to the newer PAN (AADTA0238P) under which Section 12A registration was granted. - The appellate order contained an apparent error as it focused on the PAN with Section 12A registration, implying the issue should have been examined under that PAN. - Relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in K 1006 Singanallur Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd vs PCIT. - Prayed for setting aside the CIT(A) order and remitting the issues back to the AO for fresh assessment under the new PAN. Revenue's Contentions: - The assessee was given sufficient opportunity. - There is no error in the order of the CIT(A). - Prayed for confirming the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 12A(1)(b),Section 69A,Section 69,Section 56,Section 12AB(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI & SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 16.10.2026Pronounced: 11.11.2026

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.3661/CHNY/2026
SA No.185/Chny/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

This appeal and the Stay Application (SA) by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 09.01.2026, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the Assessment Year(A.Y) 2015-16 against the assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act,

:-2-: ITA No.3661/Chny/2026 & SA. No.185/Chny/2026 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) passed by the ACIT Exemptions, Coimbatore, dated 31.03.2023. 2. At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 90 days in the filing of the present appeal by the assessee. The assessee has furnished an affidavit explaining that the assessee is a charitable trust holding a new PAN AADTA0238P allotted on 30.06.2006 under which registration u/s.12A was granted. The assessee had earlier allotted an old PAN No AAATE2118F dated 27.05.1976, which has not been surrendered due to oversight. The assessee was unaware of the impugned order dated 09.01.2026 passed against the said old PAN due to there is a practice of checking assessments with new PAN by the official-in-charge. The assessee became aware of the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) only after receiving of information from jurisdictional authority in the month of May 2026. Immediately, the assessee has taken steps through its consultant and counsel to file the present appeal. Upon perusal of the affidavit and after affording due opportunity of hearing from both parties, we are satisfied that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient and reasonable cause for not presenting the appeal within the statutory period prescribed under law. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

3.

The brief facts of the case emanating from the records are that the assessee is a temple under the control of The Hindu Religious Charitable Endowment Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu. The temple is a listed religious institution in terms of Section 45(3) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 (HR&CE Act) and did not file its original return of income for the AY 2015-16. Based on the information available with the department, the AO found that the assessee had made substantial cash deposits and time deposits in its bank accounts for the year under consideration with the PAN:AAATE2118F. The case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act, accordingly, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to the

:-3-: ITA No.3661/Chny/2026 & SA. No.185/Chny/2026 assessee. In response, the assessee filed its return of income on 28.05.2022 for the AY 2015-16, declaring total income of Rs.Nil under the PAN:AAATE2118F (which was obtained on 27.05.1976), and the same was e- verified only on 29.03.2023 by seeking a condonation of delay. Subsequently, the AO issued statutory notices to the assessee by calling for details. In response, the assessee filed reply on 31.03.2023 for consideration. On perusal of the reply submitted by the assessee, the AO observed that the assessee had applied and obtained two PANs viz: AAATE2118F (27.05.1976) and AADTA0238P (30.06.2006). The transactions of Indian Bank, Canara Bank and Time Deposits in Repco and Dhanalaxmi Bank were undertaken by the assessee by linking these bank accounts to old PAN - AAATE2118F which was not surrendered by the assessee. Later, the AO noted that no Audit Report in Form 10B, as mandated u/s.12A(1)(b) of the Act, was filed by the assessee to show that these transactions are already considered and reported in the audited financials by using the new PAN - AADTA0238P. Hence, the AO concluded the reassessment by passing an order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 31.03.2023 by making the addition of Rs.2,82,55,753/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and amount of Rs.84,42,197/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act and amount of Rs.11,493/- as income from other sources u/s.56 of the Act and adding the same to the total income of the assessee with the PAN - AAATE2118F.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 26.04.2023.

5.

At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has issued various notices to the assessee to appear for hearings order to support the appeal of the assessee. In responses to the notices, the assessee had submitted the written submission in support of grounds appeal filed. On perusal of the documents submitted by the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the

:-4-: ITA No.3661/Chny/2026 & SA. No.185/Chny/2026 assessee by confirming the order of the AO by passing an order dated 09.01.2026. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us.

6.

The ld.AR submitted that a receipt cannot be brought to tax merely because an assessee holds two PANs. There is failure to examine the receipt in an assessment pertaining to the PAN - AADTA0238P in which the registration u/s.12A was granted on 29.10.2018. Further, the ld.AR argued that there is error apparent in the order of the First Appellate Authority because, the appellate proceeding decides the appeal against the assessee only on the ground that the issue ought to have been examined in an assessment pertaining to a PAN which had registration as a trust u/s.12A of the Act. The ld.AR relied on the decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of K 1006 Singanallur Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd vs PCIT in W.P Nos 11376, 11380 and 11385 of 2022 and W.M.P Nos.10913, 10914 and 10919 of 2022 in support of his arguments. In view of the above, the ld.AR prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the order of ld.CIT(A) and remit the issues back to the file of AO for fresh assessment with a new PAN. Further, ld.AR assured the bench that the ld.AR will represent on behalf of the assessee before the AO to complete the assessment proceedings effectively.

7.

Per contra, the ld.DR submitted that the assessee has already been given sufficient opportunity and there is no error in the order of the ld.CIT(A) and hence, prayed for confirming the order of the ld.CIT(A).

8.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record including the paper book filed by the assessee. We find the assessee is a charitable trust and applied and obtained registration u/s.12AB(1)(b) of the Act on 28.02.2026 with new PAN - AADTA0238P for the AY 2027-28 to 2031- 32. We find that the assessee had not changed the PAN in the bank accounts

:-5-: ITA No.3661/Chny/2026 & SA. No.185/Chny/2026 and transactions in various banks with the new PAN obtained along with the registration held. However, the AO completed the assessment treating the entire transactions as undisclosed by making an addition in the assessment order dated 31.03.2023 under the old PAN and also treated the return of income filed by the assessee as invalid. The appellate proceedings were completed under the old PAN - AAATE2118F by confirming the order of the AO. We note that the old PAN was not surrendered by the assessee as on date. We further observe that the issue at hand is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of K 1006 Singanallur Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. v. PCIT, which is identical to the facts of the present case.

9.

In view of the above and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case discussed supra and to meet the ends of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to frame a de novo assessment under the new PAN - AADTA0238P, in accordance with law. Further, the assessee is directed to surrender the old PAN which is linked to various bank transactions referred supra in accordance with law and update the same with the latest PAN used for obtaining registration u/s.12AB of the Act. This direction is subject to the condition that the AO shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall remain diligent and cooperate by filing necessary written submissions and relevant documents as advised

10.

Since we have already adjudicated the appeal of the assessee, nothing survives in the stay application. Accordingly, the stay application stands dismissed as infructuous.

:-6-: ITA No.3661/Chny/2026 & SA. No.185/Chny/2026 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and stay application of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 11th November, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (एस एस िव�ने� रिव) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) �ाियक सद�/Judicial Member लेखा सद�/Accountant Member चे�नई/Chennai, 'दनांक/Dated, the 11th November, 2026 EJTADA Digitally signed by EJTADA DURGA E Durga Naresh, Sr. PS DURGA NARESH Date: 2026.11.13 NARESH 11:52:17 +05'30' आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to:

1.

अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3.आयकर आयु:त/CIT– Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem 4. Hवभागीय ��त�न�ध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →