Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Arunachala Charitable Trust,Namakkal vs Ito, Exemptions Ward, Salem, Salem on 30 April, 2026
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, 'बी' ायपीठ, चे ई
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी एस.एस. िव ने रिव, ाियक सद एवं ी एस.आर. रगुनाॎथ, लेखा सद के सम#
Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member &
Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.798 & 799/Chny/2026
िनधा$रण वष$/Assessment Years: 2021-22 & 2022-23
Arunachala Charitable Trust Vs. Income Tax Officer,
73 A , Rajagoundampalayam Street, Exemption Ward, Salem
No.4, Devanankurichi B.O. Gandhi
Nagar, Namakkal 637209
[PAN: AACTA3540K]
(अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent)
अपीलाथ& की ओर से / Appellant by : Ms. A. Nikitha, Advocate
'(थ& की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT
सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 15.04.2026
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2026
आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders both dated 31.12.2025 by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for Assessment Year 2021-22 & 2022-23 respectively. 2 I.T.A. No.798 & 799/Chny/2026
2. Since the issues raised in both the appeals are similar, based on same identical facts with regards to sole assessee, therefore, upon hearing both the parties and with their consent we proceed to hear both the appeals together and pass a common order for the sake of convenience.
3. First, we shall take up appeal in ITA No. 798/Chny/2026.
4. The ld.AR, Ms. A. Nikitha, Advocate, drew our attention to the petition for admission of additional grounds and prayed to take up the same as primary issue. The ld.AR submits that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine u/s. 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ['the Act' in short] by rejecting the delay condonation petition which was filed to condone the delay of 911 days for the assessment year 2021-22. She submits that the claim u/s. 11 of the Act was disallowed by the CPC, Bengaluru, for non-filing of return of income within the due date specified under the Act. She further submits that the assessee immediately filed an application before the ld.CIT(E) to condone the delay in filing the return of income to claim exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The assessee was awaiting the results of the same, due to which no appeals were filed before the ld.CIT(A). She submits that the tax practitioner advised the assessee to 3 I.T.A. No.798 & 799/Chny/2026 file appeal before the ld.CIT(A) atleast, challenging the disallowance by denying claim u/s. 11 of the Act. She prayed to admit the additional grounds for assessment year 2021-22 and direct the ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and to tax the net income instead of gross receipt for the assessment year 2021-22.
5. The ld.DR, Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.CIT, reported no objection in taxing the net income instead of gross receipts. Having heard both the parties, we note that the assessee explained reasons for the delay of 911 days for the assessment year 2021-22, which were reproduced by the ld.CIT(A) in the impugned order. On perusal of the same, it was stated that the assessee filed a petition before the ld.CIT(E), Chennai for condonation of delay in filing the return of income to claim exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The assessee was awaiting for the disposal of the said application, thereby no appeal filed before the ld.CIT(A) challenging the disallowance made by the CPC, Bengaluru, in denying the claim u/s. 11 of the Act for non-filing of return of income within the time provided by the statute. Further reading of the same, it is noted that the assessee filed an appeal immediately before the ld.CIT(A) on getting the advice from the tax professional atleast to make alternative claim to 4 I.T.A. No.798 & 799/Chny/2026 tax the net income instead of gross receipt. It is a settled principle that the gross receipt cannot be taxed, wherein, the net income has to be taxed by giving benefit to the expenditure. In this case, we find no benefit was given to expenditure which is provided under the law. Thereby, we accept the submission of the ld.AR in considering the alternative plea to tax net income but not gross receipt and we allow additional ground nos. 1 to 3. Thus, the ld.CIT(A) is directed to condone the delay and decide the issue in alternate plea in taxing the net income by giving benefit of expenditure. In view of our decision in additional ground nos. 1 to 3, remaining grounds raised in Form 3 becomes academic requiring no adjudication.
6. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No. 798/Chny/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.
7. Now, we shall take up appeal in ITA No. 799/Chny/2026
8. We find that this appeal for assessment year 2022-23, CPC- Bengaluru, denied the claim u/s. 11 of the Act for not uploading audit report in Form 10B, one month prior to filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. On perusal of the impugned order at Para no. 5.4, the 5 I.T.A. No.798 & 799/Chny/2026 ld.CIT(A) held the delay of 417 days is a huge delay and reasons offered by the assessee are inadequate, thereby, rejected the delay condonation petition, reasons of which are reproduced in Para 5.2 of the impugned order. The ld.AR submits that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee, since the ld.CIT(A) not condoned, the issue on merits not adjudicated. He prayed to remand the matter the file of the ld.CIT(A) for a fresh consideration of delay condonation petition.
9. The ld.DR vehemently opposed, if this Tribunal decides to remand the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A), that should be on a condition of payment of cost.
10. Having heard both the parties, we note that for earlier assessment year 2021-22, we remanded the matter to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for a fresh consideration to tax only the net income but not gross receipt by giving our reasons in the aforementioned paragraphs. Since this appeal also connected with the same, having considering the submissions of the ld.AR that he has a fair case to succeed before the ld.CIT(A), thereby, we direct the ld.CIT(A) to consider delay condonation and condone the delay of 417 days on payment of cost of Rs.40,000/- in favour of Tamilnadu 6 I.T.A. No.798 & 799/Chny/2026 State Legal Services Authorities at Hon'ble High Court of Madras within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The ld.CIT(A) shall satisfy the payment of cost and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits. The assessee is liberty to provide evidences, if any, in support of his claim. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
12. As a result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos. 798 & 799/Chny/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 30th April, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated : 30.04.2026 JPV/- आदेश की 'ितिलिप अ.ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ&/Appellant, 2.'(थ&/ Respondent,
3. आयकर आयु//CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem
4. िवभागीय 'ितिनिध/DR &
5. गाड$ फाईल/GF.
PRASANNA Digitally signed by
PRASANNA VANI JETTY
VANI JETTY Date: 2026.05.04 10:45:04
+05'30'