ARULMIGU DEVI KARUMARIAMMAN THIRUKOIL,CHENNAI V. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CHENNAI

ITA 1678/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Arulmigu Devi Karumariamman Thirukoil, a trust managing a Devi Temple in South India, which appealed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer. The primary issue was the delay of 931 days in filing the appeal against an intimation order under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was issued during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal considered the circumstances under which the intimation order was received and the subsequent actions taken by the assessee, including the filing of rectification petitions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774537 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N. RAJA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N.V.KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Revised return; Bonafide belief

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1678/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Arulmigu Devi Karumariamman Thirukoil, karumanriamman Thirukoil, Sannathi Street, Thiruverkadu 600 077, Chennai. [PAN:AADTA3737H] Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chennai. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri N. V. Krishnan, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-7, Delhi for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. The assessee raised 10 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer by Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.1678/Chny/25 2 dismissing the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing the appeal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. At the outset, the ld. AR Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate submits that the assessee trust is one of the oldest Devi Temples in South India and it is administered by Government of Tamil Nadu through HR & EC Department. He submits that the assessee filed the return of income on 24.10.2019 and also filed revised return on 10.02.2020 in response to the proposed adjustment intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and the same was processed with demand as per the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act dated 25.06.2020. He submits that the intimation order has been passed by the CPC, Bangalore during the nationwide lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic and on account of the said fact, the assessee could not able to track the service of intimation order dated 25.06.2020. The ld. AR submits that the assessee was in the process of resorting to the alternate remedy by filing rectification petition on 02.05.2022 and was under bonafide belief that the rectification petition was pending for disposal. However, when the assessee verified the portal for some other reasons and noted that the rectification petition filed on 02.05.2022 was rejected on the very same day of filing and the Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.1678/Chny/25 3 rejection order was neither downloadable in the portal nor served on the assessee. The ld. AR submits that left with no option, against the intimation order dated 25.06.2020, the assessee preferred an appeal on 10.02.2023 before the ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 931 days in filing the appeal and in the meantime, the assessee filed another rectification petition dated 06.02.2023 for correction of data in the ITR filed and the same is pending for disposal. Thus, the ld. AR prayed that the delay in filing appeal before the ld. CIT(A) may be condoned and directed the ld. CIT(A) adjudicate the issue on merits. 4. The ld. DR Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT opposed the submissions of the assessee and supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 5. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the CPC, Bangalore passed the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act dated 25.06.2020 during Covid-19 Pandemic period. We note that against the intimation order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with delay of 931 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of the impugned order, we note that in para 2.1 of the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) reproduced the Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.1678/Chny/25 4 reasons for condonation of delay. The ld. AR drew our attention to page 7 of the paper book being screenshot from the portal with respect to the response filed, wherein, we have noted that the assessee has uploaded two rectification petitions preferred against the intimation order. We have carefully gone through the reasons for the condonation of delay and find that the intimation order has been passed by the CPC, Bangalore during the nationwide lockdown due to Covid-19 pandemic and on account of the said fact, the assessee could not able to track the service of intimation order dated 25.06.2020 and moreover, the assessee filed rectification petition on 02.05.2022 and was under bonafide belief that the rectification petition was pending for disposal. We note that the rejection of the rectification petition has not been reached to the assessee. We also note that the assessee has preferred another rectification petition on 06.02.2023 and the same is still pending for disposal. Upon perusal of the condonation petition filed before the ld. CIT(A), we note that the assessee has taken various recourse by way of filing of rectification petitions, the reasons stated in the condonation petition are found to be bonafide. Accordingly, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues on merits by affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.1678/Chny/25 5 assessee is at liberty to furnish the details along with documentary evidences to substantiate its claims before the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 02nd September, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 02.09.2025 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "