Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 02 ITAT CK 4049

M/s Swarnim Leasing & Holdings Ltd. vs ITO Ward 22(4)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 3 February 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member · Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
ITA No. 5528/DEL/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 356 words

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.

2.

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 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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

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.