Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee maintained two PANs, one for a firm and another for an AOP, leading to cash deposits in an IDBI bank account linked to the firm's PAN being questioned by the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that these deposits were income declared under the AOP's PAN and had applied for cancellation of the firm's PAN, but the AO made additions without considering this. The CIT(A) found fault with the assessment.
Held
The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, acknowledging the assessee's negligence in having two PANs but also noting the AO's negligence in overlooking the assessee's explanation that deposits were duly declared under the AOP's PAN and that a request for PAN cancellation was made. The Tribunal concluded that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unsustainable.
Key Issues
Whether additions made by the Assessing Officer for cash deposits are valid when the assessee claims the income was already declared under a different, active PAN for the same entity, and the Assessing Officer disregarded the assessee's request for cancellation of the redundant PAN.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH
Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI BALAKRISHNAN S.
सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 03/03/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 05/03/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the orders dated 25/06/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Ld.CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi , in the case of The Sri Venkata Satya Durga Devi Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2018-19 and 2019-20, Revenue preferred these appeals, whereas justifying the action of the learned CIT(A), assessee preferred the cross objection. Since the facts involved in all these matters are same, we deem it just and convenient to dispose of all these matters by way of this common order.
At the outset, it is brough to our notice that the assessee obtained two PANs, initially one on the name of the firm which was given and linked up to account in IDBI bank and the second one as AOP for dealing in petroleum products, there is no dispute that having realized the mistake, the assessee applied for cancellation of the PAN that stood on the name of the firm way back on 20/06/2019 but no action was taken in that respect; whereas looking at the cash deposits in the IDBI bank to which the PAN on the name of firm was linked and no return of income being filed, learned Assessing Officer issued notice and making addition with reference to that PAN. The plea of the assessee all through is that all the cash deposits in the IDBI bank were shown in the accounts of the AOP dealing with petroleum products and the return of income was filed with reference to the PAN relating to the AOP. Learned Assessing Officer did not consider this fact in favour of the assessee.
In appeal, learned CIT(A) considered the same and noted in unequivocal terms that though there was negligence on the part of the assessee to have two PANs, but on realization of the mistake, assessee applied for cancellation of the PAN in relation to which the cash deposits in the IDBI bank were there, but instead of cancelling such PAN in time, though the learned Assessing Officer is having custody of these facts and also having acted upon these facts for the AY 2017-18 took a contrary view for the AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20.
Having set forth all these facts in his order, learned CIT(A) found fault with the assessment resulting in additions in respect of the cash deposits in the IDBI bank and for not verifying the fact of such deposits reflected in the return of income filed by the assessee with reference to the PAN standing in relation to AOP, and directed the learned Assessing Officer to delete the additions.
Revenue could not contradict the fact of the assessee having two PANs initially, one in the name of the firm and the other in the name of the AOP, PAN relating to firm linked up to the IDBI bank account and the PAN relating to the AOP is used to file the returns of income, or that since the returns of income are filed using the PAN relating to AOP, no return of income happens to be filed with reference to the PAN linked up to the bank account, or the assessee declaring the cash deposits in the IDBI bank in the return of income filed with reference to the PAN of the AOP.
As rightly observed by the learned CIT(A) this case appears to be a classic example of negligence, but not only of the assessee, but also of the learned Assessing Officer equally. When the assessee filed the letter on 20/06/2019 long prayed to assessment for these two years, to cancel the PAN allotted to the firm and linked up to the IDBI bank, in all diligence the learned Assessing Officer should have taken note of the same.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that the additions are made in respect of the same receipts which were declared by the AOP and therefore, those cannot be sustained. Learned CIT(A) is perfectly justified in his findings and while upholding the same, we dismiss the Revenue appeals and allow the cross objections.
In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this the 5th day of March 2025.