Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/income-tax/assessment-set-due-double-pan-bank-mismatch.html
Sandhya Das Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
Assessment Set Aside in Double PAN Case – Matter Remanded for Proper Reconciliation of Bank Deposits
The Kolkata ITAT condoned a delay of 60 days in filing the appeal and restored the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer after finding that the dispute arose due to inadvertent allotment of two PANs to the same assessee. The Tribunal noted that the assessee’s original PAN card had been misplaced and, instead of applying for a duplicate, the consultant wrongly applied for a fresh PAN, resulting in two PAN numbers and two bank accounts linked to different PANs. The Assessing Officer treated credits of ₹2.91 crore, including demonetisation cash deposits of ₹32.39 lakh, in one bank account as unexplained since no return was filed under that PAN, ignoring that the assessee had already filed returns under the original PAN and was carrying on regular business with deposits representing sales proceeds.
Holding that the issue required proper reconciliation and verification to bring only the correct income to tax, the Tribunal set aside the assessment and directed the Assessing Officer to examine the matter afresh after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 21.05.2025 for the AY 2017-18.
2. At the outset, we note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 60 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
3. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee was having double Permanent Account Number by mistake of the counsel. The PAN Card of the assessee was mis-placed and the consultant of the assessee applied for fresh PAN in stead of reapplying for the copy of the PAN Card misplaced. The ld. AO noted in the assessment order noted that there were credits of ₹2,91,69,653/- in her bank account number 236958 in SBI, Haidarpara, Siliguri, which was open with PAN No.AHDED1535B and included the cash deposits of ₹32,39,000 during demonetization period. Accordingly, the ld. AO noted that the assessee has not filed the return of income associated with the said Permanent Account Number. We also note that the assessee has another PAN with which the bank account number 20117 was opened i.e. ADVPD0925B. The assessee filed the return of income with the said PAN. We note that the assessee is carrying on the business and has depositing the sale proceeds into the bank account. In our opinion, the issue requires examination at the end of the ld. AO so that the proper reconciliation and verification could be made and the correct income could be brought to tax. In our opinion, it is a case of double PAN, when the assessee applied for the new PAN in stead of applying for the copy of the old PAN and hence, resulted into having two PAN Numbers. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the ends of justice could be well served if the issue is restored to the file of the ld. AO for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the appeal was restored to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to decide the same afresh after affording the reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.01.2026.
aniltikotekar4sme.com 