M/S. SWARNIM LEASING & HOLDINGS LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 22(4), DELHI

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee states that the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the 1 | P a g e 5528_DEL_2025_Swarnim Leasing and Holdings Ltd. Delhi assessee claimed that the assessee had two PANs: one “AAACS1677C” which is regularly used and has been used for filing ITR for A.Y. 2017-18. The other is PAN “AAPCS6200E” which has been used in the Bank account. In the said bank account, the assessee made cash deposits during the demonetization period in A.Y. 2017-18. Since the AO issued notices for PAN “AAPCS6200E”, the same remained to be complied. The AO framed the assessment in PAN “AAACS1677C” instead of PAN “AAACS1677C”. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has invoked the power u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act and set-aide the file to the AO for fresh assessment which is not justified.

Per contra, the Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee was using two PANs and therefore, the decision taken by Ld. CIT(A), setting aside the issue to the AO, was justified.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. We are of the considered view that the assessee was maintaining two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs) which is prohibited in India under Section 139A(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regardless of whether the second PAN was obtained by mistake. It is prohibited for any person, including individuals, firms, or companies, to possess, use, or obtain more than one PAN. We also find that the assessee has not initiated any action to cancel the other PAN.