RAJESH MAAN,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 35(1), DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4585/DEL/2026 (Assessment Year : 2011-12) Rajesh Maan, vs. ITO, Ward 35 (1), W/o Raj Singh Mann, New Delhi. Flat No.C-501, New Rajput Apartment, Plot No.23, Sector 12, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 078. (PAN : AMKPM7803K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Shri R.K. Vashisth, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.07.2026 Date of Order : 09.09.2026 O R D E R 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 10.03.2026 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee an individual having PAN ‘AMKPM7803K’ had actual income of Rs.2,15,649/-. However, while filing the return of one Mr Rohit Maan having a total income of Rs.15,99,880/- had filed return of income for Assessment Year 2011-12 by wrongly mentioning PAN of the assessee. The

2 ITA No.4585/DEL/2026

above return of income was processed by the CPC and the relevant demand was raised against the above said PAN, relates to the assessee. Meantime, Mr. Rohit Mann had revised his return of income by correcting the above mistake. Still the Revenue has processed the wrong ROI, which was in the name of the assessee. The assessee was not aware of the above facts and only when the recovery proceedings were initiated, he came to know of the demand and after following up with income tax department, he proceeded to file an appeal before Ld CIT(A), Thane. 3. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, for the reason that the assessee had filed the appeal with a huge delay of 4442 days. Ld CIT(A) has not ventured into merits of the case. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee filed affidavit of the assessee which is placed on record and also brought to our notice ITR of Rohit Mann, which was filed with the wrong PAN (of the assessee) and corrected ITR of Mr. Rohit Mann. He submitted that the tax demand raised are not relating to the assessee and pleaded that the same must by deleted and delay may be condoned as the assessee was not aware of such demand existed. 5. On the other hand, Ld DR supported the findings of Ld CIT(A), such huge delay cannot be condoned with the proper explanations. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and both the return of

3 ITA No.4585/DEL/2026

income submitted before us, I observe that there is a mistake apparent on record while filing the return of income of one Mr. Rohit Maan, who had wrongly filled the PAN of the assessee while filing his return of income, it is also observed that Rohit Maan is an employee of M/s Spicejet Ltd and the relevant form 16 was also filed in the paper book. Subsequently, he revised his return of income. 7. After considering the above facts on record, I observe that no doubt there is substantial delay in filing the appeal but the demand raised by the Revenue is not belongs to the assessee and when the liability is not belongs to the assessee, in our view, the same cannot be invoked or recovered any tax unduly from the wrong assessee even though there is substantial delay in taking remedial measures. In our considered view, wrong taxpayer cannot be put to difficulty on the technical grounds, therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before Ld CIT(A) and since factual matrix is favour of the assessee, I am inclined to delete the demand. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 9th day of September, 2026.

Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 09.09.2026 TS

4 ITA No.4585/DEL/2026