SHRI SAMREEN SHAFI,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SRINAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee was a regular taxpayer who had declared her income under the old PAN. The issue of dual PANs was not properly considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee was allotted two PANs and filed her return under the old PAN. However, the bank used the new PAN, leading the Assessing Officer (AO) to treat her as a non-filer and make additions based on bank deposits. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO and CIT(A) erred in treating the assessee as a non-filer and making additions without considering the submissions regarding dual PANs and income declared under the old PAN.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] order passed u/s 250of the Income Tax Act 1961[in brevity the ‘Act’], for A.Y. 2017-18.The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Srinagar[in brevity the ‘AO’], order passed u/s 144 of the Act.
2. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “
1. The assessment order is bad in law, as AO did not [considered the assesses submissions and other material land information on record.
2. The Ld. CIT (A) has clearly erred in confirming, that assessee has not filed the IT return, when she has duly [filed ITR under PAN-AHCPS0377H
3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition or Rs. 1,90,15,570/- under section 69A, when the saici| Transactions are duly accounted in the books or accounts and declared in the ITR filed under PAN- AHCPS0377H
4. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the income of the assessee at Rs. 97,62,133/- by applying profit rate of 8% on her balance Bank credits under section 44AD, when the said transactions were duly recorded in books of accounts and income earned from these transactions stands declared voluntary in the ITR filed under PAN-AHCPS0377H
5. The assessment is based on mere presumptions and conjectures.
6. Assessee craves right to add, alter or modify any grounds) [of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
3. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee is possessing two Permanent Account Numbers (in short PAN)bearing number AHCPS0377H (herein after called ‘old PAN’) and bearing number EAHPS5244B(herein after called ‘new PAN’). The assessee filed the return in the old PAN, AHCPS0377H for the impugned assessment year. In the HDFC Bank the assessee submitted the new PAN, number EAHPS5244AB. Accordingly, the ld. AO got the information and completed the assessment on basis of the new PAN, u/s 144 and the addition was determined on 8% net profit u/s 44AD related to deposit Rs.12,20,26,670/- which works out to Rs.97,62,133/- and amount of Rs.1,90,15,570/- deposited cash in bank account during the demonetisation. Accordingly, the addition was confirmed amount to Rs.97,62,133/- and Rs.1,90,15,570/- which works out the total amount of Rs.2,87,77,703/- U/s 69 of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrievedon the appeal order the assessee filed an appeal before us.
4. The ld. AR filed a written submission which is kept in the record. The ld. AR argued that the assessee is a regular taxpayer engaged in the business of running petrol pump in the name & style of M/s Safa Filling Station and filed the return u/s 139 against the old PAN. After marriage the assessee submitted requisite form and allotted another new PAN No. EAHPS5244AB. The assessee used the new PAN in HDFC Bank against the bank account. The return u/s 139 with tax audit report u/s 44AB and balance sheet was submitted with a total income of Rs.13,60,040/- in the old PAN. The issue was agitated before the AO and the ld. CIT(A). But without considering the same, the order was passed and treated the assessee as a non-filer of ITR by considering new pan. The ld. AR invited our attention in the appeal order page 4 to 6 which is reproduced as below: “The Ld. ITO has made the above assessment on the assumption that the appellant has not filed the return and hence treated the bank deposits during demonetization period & outside demonetization period as income of the assessee vide details above. In light of the above, following are the brief salient features & crux of my arguments on facts as well as on merits of the case made before your honor in respect of the above appeal:
FACTS OF THE CASE a) That in response to notice u/s 142(1) dated 10-12-2019 issued by the Ld. ITO. the appellant assessee informed him vide her letter dated 17-12-2019 that she runs a petrol pump at Alamgari Bazar, Srinagar and has filed her return under PAN AHCPS0377H. b) That along with the above letter, she submitted all details/documents required by the Ld. ITO regarding cash deposited during demonetization period spanning from 8th Nov. 2016 to 31st December 2016. The full text of the letter is reproduced below REF. N0..GM/17-18/01 DATED:17/12/2019 To, The Ld. Income Tax Officer ward 3(3), Raj Bagh, Srinagar. Dear Sir, ASSESSEE : Samreen Shafi Prop: M/s Safa Filling Station, Alamgari Bazar, Sgr ASSTT. YEAR : 2017-18 PAN : EAHPS5244B (NEW PAN.AHCPS0377H) SUBJECT '.Furnishing of Information u/s 142()of IT Act Please refer to your Notice dated 10-12-2019 requesting for information in respect of above assessee for the Assessment year 2017-18. The necessary replies are:
The assessee runs a petrol pump at Alamgari Bazar, Srinagar and maintains a bank account for her business with HDFC Bank, Alamgari Bazar, Sgr- under Current A/cNo. 50200019025571.
The assessee Files her return under PAN AFiCPS0377Fi (PAN copy enclosed). For Asstt. Year 2017-18, she has duly filed her return under Ack. No 170402951120817 dated 12-08-2017. A copy of the return along with audited financial statement is enclosed for your ready reference.
The assessee accepts having deposited Rs.1,92,19,870/- (as against Rs. 1,90,15,5707- communicated by your Ld. Self) during demonetization period in HDFC bank account. Out of the total deposits of Rs. 1,92,19,8707- as stated above, SBN notes were Rs. 79,68,5007- as per details below: 1000X3690= 36,96,000/- 500X8545= 42,72,500/- Total 79,68,500/- The date wise details of deposits is enclosed.
Since the assessee runs a petrol pump, She was allowed to accept demonetized notes uptill 31st December 2016.
A certificate from HDFC Bank is also enclosed in this regard. Bank Statement is also enclosed.
More judgments on Section 44AD
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saraswati Phukan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026