Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, M/s Swarnim Leasing & Holdings Ltd., used two PANs, "AAACS1677C" for ITR filing and "AAPCS6200E" for a bank account where cash deposits were made during demonetization. The AO issued notices for the latter PAN, but framed the assessment on the former. The CIT(A) set aside the case to the AO for fresh assessment.
Held
The Tribunal held that maintaining two PANs is prohibited under Section 139A(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, irrespective of how the second PAN was obtained, and the assessee had not taken steps to cancel the additional PAN. Therefore, the decision of the CIT(A) was upheld.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment to the AO for fresh adjudication was justified, considering the assessee maintained two PANs which is prohibited by law.
Sections Cited
250, 144, 251(1)(a), 139A(7)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, HON’BLE & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, HON’BLE
Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s Swarnim Leasing & Vs ITO WARD 22(4) Holdings Ltd. C/o R.C. Rai & Associates 203, Akashdeep building, 26A, Barakhamba Road New Delhi- 01 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACS1677C Assessee Represented by : Shri R.C. Rai, CA Department Represented by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansasra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: Date of Pronouncement: 03.02.2026 03.02.2026 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [A. M]: The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the orders dated 14.07.2025, by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, New Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for A.Y. 2017-18.
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.
2 | P a g e 5528_DEL_2025_Swarnim Leasing and Holdings Ltd. Delhi 5. In view of the fact that the assessee case has been set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act, we therefore, find no reason to interfere with the decision of the Ld. CIT(A). Ground of appeal are dismissed.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 5528/Del/25 is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03.02.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 5th FEBRUARY,2026 Pooja Mittal Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
3 | P a g e