ACIT 41 2 1, MUMBAI vs. DINESH JYOTICHAND JAIN, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN () Assessment Year: 2012-13
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated
18.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’], raising following grounds:
1. The appellant reserves the right to alter, modify, cancel
OR raise any grounds of appeal before the Appellate
Authority.
Whethe law, T assess was in 3. Whethe in law, was ve PANS o the ord issue n 4. Whethe in law, the gro Ld CIT the ass 5. Whethe and in into co Act as in conf of the A 6. The or CIT(A) 7. Whethe law, T order w submis the tra availab verified 2. The factual mat and partner in a fi contract. The assesse declaring total inc subsequently subjec section 143(3) of the November 2014, de Thereafter, based o Transaction Statemen D ITA er on the facts and circumstances of the The Ld CIT(A) was not correct in holding sment made on surrendered PAN AFK nvalid and bad-in law and is liable to be s er on the facts and circumstances of the , The CIT(A) was not correct in holding tha ery well aware of the fact that the ther of the assessee, in spite of the time gap i ders and fact that the system allowed notice u/s 148 of the Act on surrendered P er on the facts and circumstances of the , The Ld CIT(A)was not correct in not ho ounds raised by the assessee are to be de T(A) should have adjudicated the grounds sessee. er on the facts and the circumstances of law, The Id. CIT(A) was not corTect by onsideration the provisions of Section 29 the notice issued and the assessment m formity with OR according to the intent & Act. rder of the A.O should be restored an be set aside. er on the facts and circumstances of the The Ld CIT(A) was not correct in holding was passed u/s 143(3) considering all th ssion made by the then AR without confir ansaction reported on the surrendered ble at the time of assessment u/s 143(3) d by the then AO. trix of the case that the assesse irm, was engaged in the bus ee filed a return of income on 3 come of Rs.32,52,980/-. Thi cted to scrutiny, and an ass Income-tax Act, 1961 was com etermining total income at on information obtained from nt (ITS) available in the Income- Dinesh Jyotichand Jain 2 A No. 5460/MUM/2025 e case& in g that the KPJ7706F squashed e case and at the A.0. re are two in passing the A.0.to PAN. e case and olding that eleted The raised by f the case not taking 92B of the made were & purpose nd that of case & in g that the he relevant rming that PAN was ) and was ee, an individual siness of works 30th July 2013, is return was sessment under mpleted on 14th Rs.36,78,440/-. the Individual -tax Department database, indicating without correspondin that income had esc section 148 of the assessee. Despite rec calling for an exp investments, the ass The Assessing Office deposits aggregating unexplainable, and a the assessee. Additio of bank drafts tot provided for the sou unexplained investm savings accounts, w was also added to th significant additions his order u/s 147 r 2019. Regenerate d response B3. On further appe Tax (Appeals), the inadvertently allotted namely AACPJ3994F latter PAN had been D ITA g substantial bank deposits b ng income, the Assessing Officer caped assessment. Accordingly, Act was issued and duly se ceipt of notices under section 1 planation regarding the sou sessee failed to furnish any su er observed that the assessee g Rs.3,57,14,000/-, the source accordingly, added this amount nally, the Assessing Officer note taling Rs.69,09,560/-, with n rce, leading to the addition of ent. Further, interest of Rs.17,9 which was not declared in the he income. In total, the Assessin amounting to Rs.4,26,41,620/- read with section 144, dated eal before the learned Commiss assessee contended that d two Permanent Account Nu F and AFKPJ7706F. It was sub duly surrendered on 06.08.20 Dinesh Jyotichand Jain 3 A No. 5460/MUM/2025 by the assessee r formed a belief a notice under erved upon the 42(1) of the Act urces of these uch explanation. had made term e of which was to the income of ed the purchase no explanation this amount as 972/- earned on original return, ng Officer made -, as reflected in 23rd December sioner of Income he had been umbers (PANs), bmitted that the 013, much prior to the initiation of urged that the rea under section 147 of without juri iction a 4. The learned CI advanced and the m plea of the assessee the ground of lack o CIT(A) is reproduced “5.3 I have caref for the impugned of Income declar was allotted two filed PAN surren AFKPJ7706F an Subsequently, a AACPJ3994F an which the AR of complete bank dated 14.01.201 after verification balance sheet. A two PAN. 5.4 Thereafter, o surrendered PAN passed on 23.1 raising a deman appealed again surrendered by t defective and inv AACPJ3994J u/ submissions ma and after being s was levied on th two PAN. Thus th 5.5 The Hon’bl IncorporationVs.A Kolkata &Ors., W D ITA reassessment proceedings. It assessment order dated 23.12 f the Act on the surrendered P and consequently void ab initio. IT(A), upon consideration of th material available on record, fou and quashed the reassessment of juri iction. The relevant fin as under: fully considered the facts and evidences on record. d Assessment Year (AY), the appellant filed the O ring total income of Rs. 32,52,980 on 30.07.2013. o PAN i.e AACPJ3994F and AFKPJ7706F. The a nder letter before the juri ictional AO for surre nd also updated the department about the same on assessment proceedings were initiated on the nd notice u/s 142(1) were served upon the appe f the appellant had submitted the requisite detai statements and consequently order u/s 143(3) 14 assessing the total income of the appellant to R n of transactions stated in Bank statements and Also a penalty order u/s 272B of the Act was pass on 31.03.2019, the AO issued a notice u/s 148 of N AFKPJ7706F. Thereafter order u/s 144 r.w 12.2019 on the said surrendered PAN that is nd of Rs. 3,65,96,870on the appellant. The asse nst is passed on PAN AFKPJ7706F, which the appellant vide his letter. Therefore, the assess vlaid. The appellant was already assessed on his s 143(3) and order was also passed considering a ade by the then AR including financials and Ban satisfied vide order dated 14.11.2014. Also a pena he appellant vide its penalty order dated 14.11.20 he AO was very well aware of the other PAN. le Calcutta High Court in the case of Shak Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 4 W.P.A. 17644 of 2022 dated 16.08.2022 has held a Dinesh Jyotichand Jain 4 A No. 5460/MUM/2025 was, therefore, 2.2019, passed PAN, was wholly he submissions und merit in the t proceedings on nding of the Ld. .It is seen that Original Return The appellant appellant had endering PAN n 06.08.2013. retainedPAN ellant against ils along with was passed Rs. 36,78,440 d verifying his sed for having the Act on the w.s. 147 was AFKPJ7706F essment order was already sment order is s original PAN all the relevant nk statements alty u/s 272B 14 for holding kuntala Sales 43/Circle - 44, as udner:-
“………………..By assessment orde
Act, 1961, relat challenge by the March, 2022 is t natural justice s all the formal no 1657 Q and the L was communic on 28th July, 2
petition, I find th was filed by the the petitioner an the impugned as writ petition. On the assessment
July, 2022. Considering the appears from r
Annexure P-10
impugned asses initiate any fresh accordance with 5.6 In view of th surrender letter and also updat assessment proc consequently ord total income of 272B of the Act thatthe AO was dated 23.12.201
PAN, is invalid a to be deleted. Th
5. Before us, desp behalf of the ass adjournment filed. W the assessee was Accordingly, the mat assessee, after duly learned Departmenta
D
ITA y this writ petition, petitioner has challenged t er dated 29th March, 2022 under Section 147 of th ting to the assessment year 2017-18. The ma e petitioner against the impugned assessment ord that the same has been passed in total violation since before passing the aforesaid impugned asse otices were issued under the old surrendered PAN surrendering of such old PAN and the current PAN cated to the office of the respondent assessing off
2015. On perusal of the relevant record annexe hat the return relating to the relevant assessment e petitioner under the aforesaid new PAN which w nd in spite of that, the assessing officer concerned ssessment order under the old PAN as appears at p n a similar grievance relating to the assessment y against the petitioner was dropped by the orde submission of the parties, and facts and circu record the impugned order dated 29th March, to the writ petition is quashed. However, qua sment order will not prevent the respondent asses h proceeding and pass an order under Section 14
law."
he above facts and discussion, as the appellant h before the juri ictional AO for surrendering PAN ted the department about the same on 06.08.2
ceedings were initiated on the retainedPAN AAC der u/s 143(3) was passed dated 14.01.2014 a the appellant to Rs. 36,78,440 and also a pena was passed for having two PAN, I am of the con very well informed of the facts and thus the asse
19 passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act against a and is liable to be quashed and the additions mad he appeal on Ground Nos 1 to 7 are thus treated as pite due service of notice, non sessee, nor was any appli
We, therefore, formed the consi not interested in pursuin ter was taken up for hearing ex y hearing the submissions ad al Representative (Ld. DR).
Dinesh Jyotichand Jain
5
A No. 5460/MUM/2025
the impugned he Income Tax ain ground of der dated 29th of principle of essment order
N being ABGFS
N ABIFS 5263
ficer long back ed to the writ year 2017-18
was allotted to d has passed page 65 of the year 2015-16, er dated 29th umstances as , 2022 being ashing of the ssing officer to 7 of the Act in had filed PAN
N AFKPJ7706F
2013 and as CPJ3994F and assessing the alty order u/s nsidered view essment order a surrendered de are directed s allowed.”
ne appeared on ication seeking idered view that g the appeal.
x parte qua the dvanced by the 6. We have carefu below and perused th it emerges that the learned Assessing Of were found linked wi the assessee claims during the course o not respond to the st whereupon the asses section 144 read with 6.1 It is a matter of impugned additions wherein the surrend assessee, being the primary onus to exp
Assessing Officer. T surrendered, without before the Assessing discharging the statu of the Act.
6.2 It is further not Officer, who initiated informed or made aw such circumstances,
D
ITA ully considered the orders of he material placed on record. Fr addition in question has bee fficer on account of certain inv ith the Permanent Account Num to have surrendered. It is also f reassessment proceedings, th tatutory notices issued by the As ssment came to be completed h section 147 of the Act.
f record that the transactions g emanate from term deposits a dered PAN appears to have be beneficiary of such transact plain the nature and source th
The mere plea that the said t substantiating the same con g Officer, cannot absolve the utory burden cast upon him un t borne out from the records tha d the reassessment proceedings ware of the alleged surrender of t the learned CIT(A) was not just
Dinesh Jyotichand Jain
6
A No. 5460/MUM/2025
the authorities rom the records, n made by the vestments which mber (PAN) that o observed that he assessee did ssessing Officer, ex parte under giving rise to the and investments een quoted. The tions, bore the ereof before the PAN had been temporaneously assessee from nder the scheme at the Assessing
, had been duly the said PAN. In tified in treating the assessment as juri iction. It mus instrument of iden and correlation of rec juridical personality o an incorrect PAN, by but at best constitut to verification of factu
6.3 We also find tha of the Hon’ble Calcut
IncorporationVs.Ass but he accepted the face value, without a Officer or from the D as to whether suc acknowledged. The a view, vitiates the app
6.4 In the totality interest of substanti aside the impugned matter to the file of adjudication. The Ass
D
ITA void ab initio on the groun st be appreciated that the P tification, devised for efficient cords, and cannot by itself be e of the assessee. An error in quo y itself, would not render the pr e an irregularity of a curable ual compliance.
at though the ld CIT(A) refereed tta High Court in the case of Sh sistant Commissioner of Inco assessee’s assertion of surrend any independent verification from Directorate of Systems, Income-t ch surrender was actually m absence of such verification, in pellate finding.
of the facts and circumstanc ial justice, we deem it just an order of the learned CIT(A) a f the learned Assessing Officer sessing Officer shall ascertain:
Dinesh Jyotichand Jain
7
A No. 5460/MUM/2025
nd of want of PAN is but an t administration equated with the ting or adopting roceedings void, nature, subject d to the decision hakuntala Sales ome Tax,(supra) der of PAN at its m the Assessing tax Department, made and duly our considered ces, and in the nd proper to set and restore the for a de novo
Whether the ass the Assessing O PAN in question 2. Whether, in con investments, th reported by the 6.5 The learned As such further enqui thereafter pass a sp needless to add th adequate opportunity taken. 6.6 Accordingly, the for statistical purpo 7. In the result, statistical purposes. Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 06/11/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
D
ITA sessee had, in fact, informed the Officer concerned regarding the s n prior to completion of the reass nnection with the impugned te he surrendered PAN was in assessee.
ssessing Officer shall be at lib iries as may be considered peaking order in accordance at the assessee shall be affo y of being heard before any f e grounds raised by the Reven oses.
the appeal of the Revenue ced in the open Court on 06/
d/-
S
CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA
Dinesh Jyotichand Jain
8
A No. 5460/MUM/2025
e Department or surrender of the sessment; and erm deposits or fact quoted or erty to conduct necessary and with law. It is orded due and final decision is nue are allowed is allowed for 11/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
D
ITA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu
Dinesh Jyotichand Jain
9
A No. 5460/MUM/2025
R, gistrar) umbai