RADICAL FINCAP PRIVATE LIMITED,YAVATMAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, YAVATMAL

ITA 21/PAT/2026Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 October 2026AY 2014-20157 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the PAN AABCG 9672N, used by the AO to issue notices, pertained to the assessee, having been allotted on 30.09.2003 with registration number 03-6083, which was the same as for PAN AABCG 9810E allotted on 27.10.2003. The address associated with PAN AABCG 9672N was also found to be the assessee's address. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not intimated changes in name or address to the AO. Citing Supreme Court in PCIT v. I Venn Interactive Services Pvt Ltd and ITAT Kolkata in Tarasafe International P Ltd v. DCIT, the Tribunal upheld the validity of notices issued to the address available in the PAN database, thus upholding the AO's jurisdiction and the validity of the notices. Regarding the additions, the Tribunal observed that the AO decided the issue ex-parte, and the assessee failed to submit information on merit before the CIT(A). The Tribunal considered it fit to set aside the impugned assessments for both years and remit them to the AO for fresh assessment. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with all information and evidence, allow an opportunity of hearing, and consider the returns filed under PAN AABCG 9810E. The AO was also directed to forward all relevant information to the AO having jurisdiction over PAN AABCG 9810E to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

What were the facts?

These appeals by Radical Fincap Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Gainmore Savings Ltd.) challenge orders for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14 and 2014-15. For AY 2013-14, the Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Section 147, alleging the assessee received Rs. 1.91 crore from M/s Subhlabh Commodeal Pvt Ltd, identified as an accommodation entry provider, and made an addition under Section 68. For AY 2014-15, the AO initiated proceedings under Section 148, alleging the assessee received Rs. 70 Lakhs from paper companies used for layering and accommodation entries, and made an addition. The assessee contended that notices were issued on an invalid PAN (AABCG 9672N) and that its correct PAN is AABCG 9810E, under which it filed returns. The assessee also raised jurisdictional issues and argued that additions were arbitrary.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148 for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15, based on PAN AABCG 9672N, are valid, considering the assessee's claim that its correct PAN is AABCG 9810E and that the AO lacked competent jurisdiction. - Assessee's contention: Notices were issued on an invalid PAN, and the AO at Chapra lacked jurisdiction. The assessee's correct PAN is AABCG 9810E, and returns were filed under this PAN. The additions were arbitrary and made without proper enquiry. - Revenue's contention: Relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 2. Whether the additions of Rs. 1.91 crore for AY 2013-14 and Rs. 70 Lakhs for AY 2014-15 are justified. - Assessee's contention: Additions were made arbitrarily without proper enquiry and should be deleted. Alternatively, the issues may be set aside for the AO to decide on merits. - Revenue's contention: Relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH: PATNA

Before: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Gopalan Gurusamy

Per Gopalan Gurusamy, AM:

These are the appeals preferred by the assessee against the separate orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Act dated 13.11.2025 for the AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15, vide Appeal Nos NFAC/2012-13/10167077 & NFAC/2013- 14/10167081 respectively. Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Radical Fincap Pvt. Ltd.

2.

These two appeals of the assessee related to AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 wherein the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs. 1.91 crore and Rs. 70 Lakhs resp

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →