MOM FOUNDATION,VELLORE V. ITO, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, CHENNA

ITA 3468/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Mom Foundation, a Public Charitable Trust, which appealed against the ex-parte order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessing Officer had initially passed an ex-parte order adding a substantial amount as income from other sources due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices regarding unexplained funds in their bank account. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 835343 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: TIN Box Co. v. CIT [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: N. SANJIT KRISHNA
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; TDS; Charitable institution; FORM 26AS

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद क े सम\u001b BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3468/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरण वष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s. Mom Foundation, Eden Campus, Jabrapet, Vellore-632 006. [PAN: AACTM 3251 B] v. The ITO, Exemptions Ward-1, Chennai. (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.N. Sanjit Krishna, CA \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.02.2026 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 11.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 01.09.2025 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2020-21. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex-parte order qua assessee. It was further brought to our notice that the AO has also passed an ex- parte order qua assessee. Therefore, he pleaded that the matter may be Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3468/Chny/2025 (AY 2020-21) M/s. Mom Foundation :: 2 :: restored back to the file of the AO since the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before AO, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Public Charitable Trust, which according to the AO didn’t file ITR and audited report for AY 2020-21. The AO noted that in the assessee’s bank account there was a total credit and debit of ₹2,75,34,792/- & ₹2,67,50,551/- respectively. According to the AO, as per Form 26AS, the assessee has received interest receipt of ₹6,90,840/- as the diductors has reported in their TDS return. Since the assessee couldn’t offer explanation on the fund of ₹2,75,34,792/- received in its bank account with Union Bank of India, the AO treated the said income under the head ‘income from other sources’ and also added interest income of ₹6,90,840/-. And made addition of ₹2,72,68,769/- by order dated 29.01.2025. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee taking note that the assessee didn’t respond to his four (4) notices by passing the impugned ex-parte order. Aggrieved, the assessee pleaded for restoring the assessment back to the file of the AO for de-novo assessment, since assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO and for such a plea, cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. v. CIT reported in [2001] 249 ITR 216 (SC). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3468/Chny/2025 (AY 2020-21) M/s. Mom Foundation :: 3 :: 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR opposes the plea of the assessee and doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we note that the assessee is a Public Charitable Trust, but didn’t file the ITR & audit report for AY 2020-21. The AO reopened the assessment of the assessee by taking note of the credit/debit in the accounts of the assessee. Since he didn’t respond to his notices, and obviously didn’t offer explanation on the fund of ₹2,65,77,929/- received by the assessee in its bank account with Union Bank of India, he made addition of the same under the head ‘income from other sources’ and also added interest income and thus, made total addition of ₹2,72,68,769/- by passing ex-parte order u/s.144 of the Act. According to the assessee, it didn’t receive any notices from the AO due to glitches in the system. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal since the assessee didn’t comply with the notices and that too without going into the merits of the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Be that as it may. The main grievance of the assessee, in the facts and circumstance of the case is that it (assessee) didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO which led to passing of ex-parte order making huge addition of more than ₹2.72 Crs. We find that the assessee didn’t get proper opportunity before the AO and therefore relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3468/Chny/2025 (AY 2020-21) M/s. Mom Foundation :: 4 :: of TIN Box Co. (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: 1. It is unnecessary to go into great detail in these matters for there is a statement in the order of the Tribunal, the fact-finding authority, that reads thus : \"We will straightaway agree with the assessee's submission that the Income-tax Officer had not given to the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.\" 2. That the assessee could have placed evidence before the first appellate authority or before the Tribunal is really of no consequence for it is the assessment order that counts. That order must be made after the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of selling out his case. We, therefore, do not agree with the Tribunal and the High Court that it was not necessary to set aside the order of assessment and remand the matter to the assessing authority for fresh assessment after giving to the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. 3. Two questions were placed before the High Court, of which the second question is not pressed. The first question reads thus: \"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not setting aside the assessment order in spite of a finding arrived at by it that the Income-tax Officer had not given a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee?\" 4. In our opinion, there can only be one answer to this question which is inherent in the question itself: in the negative and in favour of the asses- see. 5. The appeals are allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The assessment order, that of the Commissioner (Appeals) and of the Tribunal are also set aside. The matter shall now be remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration, as aforestated. No order as to costs. 6. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of TIN Box Co. (supra), we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the assessment back to the file of the AO for de-novo assessment. The Ld.AR has undertaken to file all the relevant documents necessary for making its claim and is at liberty Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3468/Chny/2025 (AY 2020-21) M/s. Mom Foundation :: 5 :: to file relevant documents to substantiate its claim. The AO is directed to frame fresh assessment in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 11th day of February, 2026, in Chennai. Sd/- (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R.RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सद\u0003य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0005याियक सद\u0003य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 11th February, 2026. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. \u000e\u000fथ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0015/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u000eितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "