THE MAYYANAD REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

However, two assessments for the same assessee for the same assessment year under different PANs for different reasons do not appear to be correct. Therefore, the impugned Ext.P7 assessment may have to be set aside. However, this may be done with a direction to consider the inclusion of the cash deposits found uploaded in the old PAN as income, if called for, by reopening the assessment already completed by Ext.P4 order. This prayer is made in order to protect the interests of the Revenue as the normal time limit for reopening the assessment for 2017-18 is already over. It may be kindly noted that the non-consideration of the cash deposits found uploaded in the old PAN for inclusion as income while completing the original assessment was on account of the fact that the details of these cash deposits were uploaded in the old PAN only and the reason for this is the failure of the petitioner to deactivate the old PAN. If the Hon'ble High Court is pleased to give a direction as prayed for as above, the time limit for reopening the assessment get obliterated in terms of Section 150(1) of the Income Tax Act”.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner could not get the old PAN number cancelled only on account of the fact that the petitioner could not retrieve its password to enable access the portal. It is submitted that though Exts.P3 to P3(b) requests were filed in this regard there were no response from the Income Tax Department.

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner could not have the old PAN number cancelled etc. since the petitioner did not have access to the password and hence the portal, is only to be rejected as this is a case where the petitioner had quoted and had given the details of its old PAN number while carrying out Banking transactions with Banks where it had maintained accounts. This was done even in the assessment year 2017-2018, even after the petitioner was clearly aware that it had been issued with a new PAN number from the assessment year 2013-2014 onwards and that the assessments of the petitioner were being completed under that PAN number. Therefore, for the mistake of the petitioner, the department cannot be found fault with.

Therefore, I am of the view that Ext.P7 assessment order can be set aside with a right reserved to the respondent department to initiate reassessment proceedings in respect of the assessment year 2017-2018, by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case I hold that it will not be open to the petitioner to contend that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2017-2018 is barred by limitation. I am constrained to direct so, only on account of the fact that according to the department, the unexplained cash transactions relate to the period of demonetisation and also on account of the fact that it was the petitioner’s own mistake in providing its old PAN number that led to initiation of proceedings and its completion by Ext.P7 order of assessment under the old PAN number. Ext.P7 order of assessment is quashed permitting the Income Tax Department to initiate fresh proceedings by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2017-2018. The petitioner is precluded from contending that the proceedings are barred by limitation. The proceedings for reassessment shall be initiated as above under the new PAN number of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE ats