SRIMAN RANGANATHAR SPINNERS,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-4(4), COIMBATORE

At the outset, Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) is an ex parte order, passed without adjudicating

Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Assessee has brought to our notice certain relevant facts that it is a firm, which was originally constituted under the name M/s. Hi-Life Textiles and was allotted PAN AABFH3638N. Subsequently, in the year 2012, the name of the firm was changed from Hi-Life Textiles to Rithanyaa Textiles. Although there was no requirement to obtain a new PAN (on account of the change in the firm's name), the firm inadvertently applied for a fresh PAN in the name of Rithanyaa Textiles, and PAN AAHFR6617F was allotted by the Income Tax Department. Thereafter, the firm's name was again changed to M/s. Sriman Ranganathan Spinners.

And from its inception, the firm had been regularly filing its income tax returns under PAN AABFH3638N, originally in the name of Hi-Life Textiles and subsequently in the name of Rithanyaa Textiles, for all

Consequently, M/s. GVD Textiles Private Limited deducted tax (TDS) at source on the job work payments and reported the same in its TDS returns under the incorrect PAN AAHFR6617F instead of the correct PAN AABFH3638N. As a result, the TDS returns for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2017-18 reflected the wrong PAN number.

Despite this error, the firm continued to file its income tax returns for all years under PAN AABFH3638N, notwithstanding the changes in its name from Hi-Life Textiles to Rithanyaa Textiles and thereafter to Sriman Ranganathan Spinners. Based on the TDS credits appearing in Form 26AS under PAN AAHFR6617F, the AO reopened the assessments for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2017-18 under the said PAN.

The discrepancy came to light only upon receipt of notices from the Income Tax Department stating that no returns had been filed for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2017-18 under PAN AAHFR6617F. In response, the firm filed Nil returns for both assessment years and

It was brought to our notice that Audit Report under Section 44AB dated 31.10.2017 and ITR was filed on 16.12.2017 for the relevant assessment year, wherein the entire job work receipts of Rs 4,62,08,244/-received from M/s. GVD Textiles Private Limited were duly accounted for after considering all receipts and expenses and the audit report reflected a business loss of approximately Rs 1.07 crores.

Further, it was brought to our notice that similar issue had cropped up for Assessment Year 2013-14, wherein AO made similar disallowances, and consequently, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Ld CIT(A)/NFAC, who vide order dated 30.04.2026, remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and placed a copy of the said order before us.

It was further submitted that due to severe recession in the textile industry, the appellant suffered substantial financial losses and was ultimately compelled to discontinue its business operations. Owing to

Per Contra, the Ld DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to assessee.

Heard both parties. Facts noted supra are not repeated for sake of brevity. Assessee has filed before us a copy of the TDS reversed and corrected TDS; and submitted that the diductor of tax (M/s. GVD Textiles Private Limited) had filed TDS return by mentioning wrong PAN of the appellant (PAN AAHFR6617F) therefore, the AO got the adverse information and reopened the assessment and made the disallowances. Finding the error, the assessee pointed out the mistake to the diductor and upon correcting the same the TDS return has been rectified and the

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is statistically allowed.