ACIT 41 2 1, MUMBAI V. DINESH JYOTICHAND JAIN, MUMBAI

ITA 5460/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had quashed the reassessment proceedings on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The assessee, Dinesh Jyotichand Jain, had been issued two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs), AACPJ3994F and AFKPJ7706F, and had surrendered one of them (AFKPJ7706F) prior to the reassessment. The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings on the surrendered PAN, leading to significant additions to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) found the reassessment invalid as it was conducted on a surrendered PAN. The Tribunal, however, set aside the CIT(A)'s decision and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for further investigation into the proper use of PANs and the related transactions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783265 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Shakuntala Sales Incorporation Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 43/Circle Kolkata & Ors., W.P.A. 17644 of 2022
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANNAVARAM KASURI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 5460/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ACIT 41 2 1, 832, 8th floor, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, BKC, Mumbai-400051. Vs. Dinesh Jyotichand Jain, 1904/1905, Autumn Hay, Neptune Living Point, LBS Marg, Bhandup West, Mumbai-400078. PAN NO. AACPJ 3994 J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Mr. Annavaram Kasuri, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03/11/2025 Date of pronouncement : 06/11/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], raising following grounds: 1. The appellant reserves the right to alter, modify, cancel OR raise any grounds of appeal before the Appellate Authority. Printed from counselvise.com 2. Whether on the facts and cir law, The Ld CIT(A) was not correct in holding that the assessment made on surrendered PAN AFKPJ7706F was invalid and bad 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, The CIT(A was very well aware of the fact that the there are two PANS of the assessee, in spite of the time gap in passing the orders and fact that the system allowed the A.0.to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act on surrendere 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld CIT(A)was not correct in not holding that the grounds raised by the assessee are to be deleted The Ld CIT(A) should have adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee. 5. Whether on and in law, The Id. CIT(A) was not corTect by not taking into consideration the provisions of Section 292B of the Act as the notice issued and the assessment made were in conformity with OR according to the inte of the Act. 6. The order of the A.O should be restored and that of CIT(A) be set aside. 7. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, The Ld CIT(A) was not correct in holding that the order was passed u/s 143(3) considering all the submission made by the then AR without confirming that the transaction reported on the surrendered PAN was available at the time of assessment u/s 143(3) and was verified 2. The factual matrix of the case and partner in a firm, was engaged in the business of works contract. The assessee filed a return of income on 30th July 2013, declaring total income of Rs.32,52,980/ subsequently subjected to scrutiny, and an assessment under section 143(3) of the Income November 2014, determining total income at Rs.36,78,440/ Thereafter, based on information obtained from the Individual Transaction Statement (ITS) available in the Income Dinesh Jyotichand Jain ITA No. 5460/MUM/2025 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case& in law, The Ld CIT(A) was not correct in holding that the assessment made on surrendered PAN AFKPJ7706F was invalid and bad-in law and is liable to be squashed Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, The CIT(A) was not correct in holding that the A.0. was very well aware of the fact that the there are two PANS of the assessee, in spite of the time gap in passing the orders and fact that the system allowed the A.0.to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act on surrendered PAN. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld CIT(A)was not correct in not holding that the grounds raised by the assessee are to be deleted The Ld CIT(A) should have adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, The Id. CIT(A) was not corTect by not taking into consideration the provisions of Section 292B of the Act as the notice issued and the assessment made were in conformity with OR according to the intent & purpose of the Act. The order of the A.O should be restored and that of CIT(A) be set aside. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, The Ld CIT(A) was not correct in holding that the order was passed u/s 143(3) considering all the submission made by the then AR without confirming that the transaction reported on the surrendered PAN was available at the time of assessment u/s 143(3) and was verified by the then AO. The factual matrix of the case that the assessee, an ind and partner in a firm, was engaged in the business of works contract. The assessee filed a return of income on 30th July 2013, declaring total income of Rs.32,52,980/-. This return was subsequently subjected to scrutiny, and an assessment under tion 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was completed on 14th November 2014, determining total income at Rs.36,78,440/ Thereafter, based on information obtained from the Individual Transaction Statement (ITS) available in the Income- Dinesh Jyotichand Jain 2 ITA No. 5460/MUM/2025 cumstances of the case& in law, The Ld CIT(A) was not correct in holding that the assessment made on surrendered PAN AFKPJ7706F in law and is liable to be squashed Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and ) was not correct in holding that the A.0. was very well aware of the fact that the there are two PANS of the assessee, in spite of the time gap in passing the orders and fact that the system allowed the A.0.to d PAN. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld CIT(A)was not correct in not holding that the grounds raised by the assessee are to be deleted The Ld CIT(A) should have adjudicated the grounds raised by the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, The Id. CIT(A) was not corTect by not taking into consideration the provisions of Section 292B of the Act as the notice issued and the assessment made were nt & purpose The order of the A.O should be restored and that of Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, The Ld CIT(A) was not correct in holding that the order was passed u/s 143(3) considering all the relevant submission made by the then AR without confirming that the transaction reported on the surrendered PAN was available at the time of assessment u/s 143(3) and was he assessee, an individual and partner in a firm, was engaged in the business of works contract. The assessee filed a return of income on 30th July 2013, . This return was subsequently subjected to scrutiny, and an assessment under tax Act, 1961 was completed on 14th November 2014, determining total income at Rs.36,78,440/-. Thereafter, based on information obtained from the Individual -tax Department Printed from counselvise.com database, indicating substantial bank deposits by the assessee without corresponding income, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income had escaped assessment. Accordingly, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and duly served upon the assessee. Despite receipt of notices under section 142(1) of the Act calling for an explanation regarding the sources of these investments, the assessee failed to furnish any such explanation. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made term deposits aggregating Rs.3,57,14,000/ unexplainable, and accordingly, added this amount to the income of the assessee. Additionally, the Assessing Officer noted the purchase of bank drafts totaling Rs.69,09,560/ provided for the source, leading to the addition of this amount as unexplained investment. Further, interest of Rs.17,972/ savings accounts, which was not declared in the original return, was also added to the income. significant additions amounting to Rs.4,26,41,620/ his order u/s 147 read with section 144, dated 23rd December 2019. Regenerate d response B3. On further appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee contended that he had been inadvertently allotted two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs), namely AACPJ3994F latter PAN had been Dinesh Jyotichand Jain ITA No. 5460/MUM/2025 se, indicating substantial bank deposits by the assessee without corresponding income, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income had escaped assessment. Accordingly, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and duly served upon the Despite receipt of notices under section 142(1) of the Act calling for an explanation regarding the sources of these investments, the assessee failed to furnish any such explanation. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made term aggregating Rs.3,57,14,000/-, the source of which was unexplainable, and accordingly, added this amount to the income of the assessee. Additionally, the Assessing Officer noted the purchase of bank drafts totaling Rs.69,09,560/-, with no explanation ded for the source, leading to the addition of this amount as unexplained investment. Further, interest of Rs.17,972/ savings accounts, which was not declared in the original return, was also added to the income. In total, the Assessing Officer significant additions amounting to Rs.4,26,41,620/- his order u/s 147 read with section 144, dated 23rd December On further appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee contended that he had been inadvertently allotted two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs), AACPJ3994F and AFKPJ7706F. It was submitted that the latter PAN had been duly surrendered on 06.08.2013 Dinesh Jyotichand Jain 3 ITA No. 5460/MUM/2025 se, indicating substantial bank deposits by the assessee without corresponding income, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income had escaped assessment. Accordingly, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and duly served upon the Despite receipt of notices under section 142(1) of the Act calling for an explanation regarding the sources of these investments, the assessee failed to furnish any such explanation. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had made term , the source of which was unexplainable, and accordingly, added this amount to the income of the assessee. Additionally, the Assessing Officer noted the purchase , with no explanation ded for the source, leading to the addition of this amount as unexplained investment. Further, interest of Rs.17,972/- earned on savings accounts, which was not declared in the original return, In total, the Assessing Officer made -, as reflected in his order u/s 147 read with section 144, dated 23rd December On further appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the assessee contended that he had been inadvertently allotted two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs), . It was submitted that the 06.08.2013, much prior Printed from counselvise.com to the initiation of reassessment proceedings. It was, therefore, urged that the reassessment order dated under section 147 of the Act on the surrendered PAN, was wholly without jurisdiction and 4. The learned CIT(A), upon consideration of the submissions advanced and the material available on record, found merit in the plea of the assessee and quashed the reassessment proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “5.3 I have carefully considered the facts and evidences on record.It is seen that for the impugned Assessment Year (AY), the appellant filed the Original Return of Income declaring total was allotted two PAN i.e AACPJ3994F and AFKPJ7706F. The appellant had filed PAN surrender letter before the jurisdictional AO for surrendering PAN AFKPJ7706F and also updated the department about the sam Subsequently, assessment proceedings were initiated on the retainedPAN AACPJ3994F and notice u/s 142(1) were served upon the appellant against which the AR of the appellant had submitted the requisite details along with complete bank state dated 14.01.2014 assessing the total income of the appellant to Rs. 36,78,440 after verification of transactions stated in Bank statements and verifying his balance sheet. Also a penalty order u/s 272B of two PAN. 5.4 Thereafter, on 31.03.2019, the AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on the surrendered PAN AFKPJ7706F. Thereafter order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 was passed on 23.12.2019 on the said surrendered PAN that is AFKPJ7706F raising a demand of Rs. 3,65,96,870on the appellant. The assessment order appealed against is passed on PAN AFKPJ7706F, which was already surrendered by the appellant vide his letter. Therefore, the assessment order is defective and invlaid. The appellant w AACPJ3994J u/s 143(3) and order was also passed considering all the relevant submissions made by the then AR including financials and Bank statements and after being satisfied vide order dated 14.11.2014. Also a pena was levied on the appellant vide its penalty order dated 14.11.2014 for holding two PAN. Thus the AO was very well aware of the other PAN. 5.5 The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shakuntala Sales IncorporationVs.Assistant Commission Kolkata &Ors., W.P.A. 17644 of 2022 dated 16.08.2022 has held as udner: Dinesh Jyotichand Jain ITA No. 5460/MUM/2025 to the initiation of reassessment proceedings. It was, therefore, urged that the reassessment order dated 23.12.2019 under section 147 of the Act on the surrendered PAN, was wholly without jurisdiction and consequently void ab initio. The learned CIT(A), upon consideration of the submissions advanced and the material available on record, found merit in the plea of the assessee and quashed the reassessment proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: I have carefully considered the facts and evidences on record.It is seen that for the impugned Assessment Year (AY), the appellant filed the Original Return of Income declaring total income of Rs. 32,52,980 on 30.07.2013. The appellant was allotted two PAN i.e AACPJ3994F and AFKPJ7706F. The appellant had filed PAN surrender letter before the jurisdictional AO for surrendering PAN AFKPJ7706F and also updated the department about the same on 06.08.2013. Subsequently, assessment proceedings were initiated on the retainedPAN AACPJ3994F and notice u/s 142(1) were served upon the appellant against which the AR of the appellant had submitted the requisite details along with complete bank statements and consequently order u/s 143(3) was passed dated 14.01.2014 assessing the total income of the appellant to Rs. 36,78,440 after verification of transactions stated in Bank statements and verifying his balance sheet. Also a penalty order u/s 272B of the Act was passed for having Thereafter, on 31.03.2019, the AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on the surrendered PAN AFKPJ7706F. Thereafter order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 was passed on 23.12.2019 on the said surrendered PAN that is AFKPJ7706F aising a demand of Rs. 3,65,96,870on the appellant. The assessment order appealed against is passed on PAN AFKPJ7706F, which was already surrendered by the appellant vide his letter. Therefore, the assessment order is defective and invlaid. The appellant was already assessed on his original PAN AACPJ3994J u/s 143(3) and order was also passed considering all the relevant submissions made by the then AR including financials and Bank statements and after being satisfied vide order dated 14.11.2014. Also a pena was levied on the appellant vide its penalty order dated 14.11.2014 for holding two PAN. Thus the AO was very well aware of the other PAN. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shakuntala Sales IncorporationVs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 43/Circle Kolkata &Ors., W.P.A. 17644 of 2022 dated 16.08.2022 has held as udner: Dinesh Jyotichand Jain 4 ITA No. 5460/MUM/2025 to the initiation of reassessment proceedings. It was, therefore, 23.12.2019, passed under section 147 of the Act on the surrendered PAN, was wholly The learned CIT(A), upon consideration of the submissions advanced and the material available on record, found merit in the plea of the assessee and quashed the reassessment proceedings on The relevant finding of the Ld. I have carefully considered the facts and evidences on record.It is seen that for the impugned Assessment Year (AY), the appellant filed the Original Return income of Rs. 32,52,980 on 30.07.2013. The appellant was allotted two PAN i.e AACPJ3994F and AFKPJ7706F. The appellant had filed PAN surrender letter before the jurisdictional AO for surrendering PAN e on 06.08.2013. Subsequently, assessment proceedings were initiated on the retainedPAN AACPJ3994F and notice u/s 142(1) were served upon the appellant against which the AR of the appellant had submitted the requisite details along with ments and consequently order u/s 143(3) was passed dated 14.01.2014 assessing the total income of the appellant to Rs. 36,78,440 after verification of transactions stated in Bank statements and verifying his the Act was passed for having Thereafter, on 31.03.2019, the AO issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on the surrendered PAN AFKPJ7706F. Thereafter order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 was passed on 23.12.2019 on the said surrendered PAN that is AFKPJ7706F aising a demand of Rs. 3,65,96,870on the appellant. The assessment order appealed against is passed on PAN AFKPJ7706F, which was already surrendered by the appellant vide his letter. Therefore, the assessment order is as already assessed on his original PAN AACPJ3994J u/s 143(3) and order was also passed considering all the relevant submissions made by the then AR including financials and Bank statements and after being satisfied vide order dated 14.11.2014. Also a penalty u/s 272B was levied on the appellant vide its penalty order dated 14.11.2014 for holding The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shakuntala Sales 43/Circle - 44, Kolkata &Ors., W.P.A. 17644 of 2022 dated 16.08.2022 has held as udner:- Printed from counselvise.com “………………..By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment order dated 29th March, 2022 under Section 147 of the Inco Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 2017 challenge by the petitioner against the impugned assessment order dated 29th March, 2022 is that the same has been passed in total violation of principle of natural justice since all the formal notices were issued under the old surrendered PAN being ABGFS 1657 Q and the surrendering of such old PAN and the current PAN ABIFS 5263 L was communicated to the office of the responde on 28th July, 2015. On perusal of the relevant record annexed to the writ petition, I find that the return relating to the relevant assessment year 2017 was filed by the petitioner under the aforesaid new PAN which was all the petitioner and in spite of that, the assessing officer concerned has passed the impugned assessment order under the old PAN as appears at page 65 of the writ petition. On a similar grievance relating to the assessment year 2015 the assessment against the petitioner was dropped by the order dated 29th July, 2022. Considering the submission of the parties, and facts and circumstances as appears from record the impugned order dated 29th March, 2022 being Annexure P-10 to the writ petition is q impugned assessment order will not prevent the respondent assessing officer to initiate any fresh proceeding and pass an order under Section 147 of the Act in accordance with law.\" 5.6 In view of the above facts and discuss surrender letter before the jurisdictional AO for surrendering PAN AFKPJ7706F and also updated the department about the same on 06.08.2013 and as assessment proceedings were initiated on the retainedPAN AACPJ3994F and consequently order u/s 143(3) was passed dated 14.01.2014 assessing the total income of the appellant to Rs. 36,78,440 and also a penalty order u/s 272B of the Act was passed for having two PAN, I am of the considered view thatthe AO was very well informed o dated 23.12.2019 passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act against a surrendered PAN, is invalid and is liable to be quashed and the additions made are directed to be deleted. The appeal on Ground Nos 1 to 7 are thus tre 5. Before us, despite due service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any application seeking adjournment filed. We, therefore, formed the considered view that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal Accordingly, the matter was taken up for hearing assessee, after duly hearing the submissions advanced by the learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR). Dinesh Jyotichand Jain ITA No. 5460/MUM/2025 By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment order dated 29th March, 2022 under Section 147 of the Inco Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 2017-18. The main ground of challenge by the petitioner against the impugned assessment order dated 29th March, 2022 is that the same has been passed in total violation of principle of natural justice since before passing the aforesaid impugned assessment order all the formal notices were issued under the old surrendered PAN being ABGFS 1657 Q and the surrendering of such old PAN and the current PAN ABIFS 5263 L was communicated to the office of the respondent assessing officer long back on 28th July, 2015. On perusal of the relevant record annexed to the writ petition, I find that the return relating to the relevant assessment year 2017 was filed by the petitioner under the aforesaid new PAN which was all the petitioner and in spite of that, the assessing officer concerned has passed the impugned assessment order under the old PAN as appears at page 65 of the writ petition. On a similar grievance relating to the assessment year 2015 ent against the petitioner was dropped by the order dated 29th Considering the submission of the parties, and facts and circumstances as appears from record the impugned order dated 29th March, 2022 being 10 to the writ petition is quashed. However, quashing of the impugned assessment order will not prevent the respondent assessing officer to initiate any fresh proceeding and pass an order under Section 147 of the Act in accordance with law.\" In view of the above facts and discussion, as the appellant had filed PAN surrender letter before the jurisdictional AO for surrendering PAN AFKPJ7706F and also updated the department about the same on 06.08.2013 and as assessment proceedings were initiated on the retainedPAN AACPJ3994F and nsequently order u/s 143(3) was passed dated 14.01.2014 assessing the total income of the appellant to Rs. 36,78,440 and also a penalty order u/s 272B of the Act was passed for having two PAN, I am of the considered view thatthe AO was very well informed of the facts and thus the assessment order dated 23.12.2019 passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act against a surrendered PAN, is invalid and is liable to be quashed and the additions made are directed to be deleted. The appeal on Ground Nos 1 to 7 are thus treated as allowed. Before us, despite due service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any application seeking adjournment filed. We, therefore, formed the considered view that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal Accordingly, the matter was taken up for hearing ex parte qua the , after duly hearing the submissions advanced by the learned Departmental Representative (Ld. DR). Dinesh Jyotichand Jain 5 ITA No. 5460/MUM/2025 By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment order dated 29th March, 2022 under Section 147 of the Income Tax 18. The main ground of challenge by the petitioner against the impugned assessment order dated 29th March, 2022 is that the same has been passed in total violation of principle of before passing the aforesaid impugned assessment order all the formal notices were issued under the old surrendered PAN being ABGFS 1657 Q and the surrendering of such old PAN and the current PAN ABIFS 5263 nt assessing officer long back on 28th July, 2015. On perusal of the relevant record annexed to the writ petition, I find that the return relating to the relevant assessment year 2017-18 was filed by the petitioner under the aforesaid new PAN which was allotted to the petitioner and in spite of that, the assessing officer concerned has passed the impugned assessment order under the old PAN as appears at page 65 of the writ petition. On a similar grievance relating to the assessment year 2015-16, ent against the petitioner was dropped by the order dated 29th Considering the submission of the parties, and facts and circumstances as appears from record the impugned order dated 29th March, 2022 being uashed. However, quashing of the impugned assessment order will not prevent the respondent assessing officer to initiate any fresh proceeding and pass an order under Section 147 of the Act in ion, as the appellant had filed PAN surrender letter before the jurisdictional AO for surrendering PAN AFKPJ7706F and also updated the department about the same on 06.08.2013 and as assessment proceedings were initiated on the retainedPAN AACPJ3994F and nsequently order u/s 143(3) was passed dated 14.01.2014 assessing the total income of the appellant to Rs. 36,78,440 and also a penalty order u/s 272B of the Act was passed for having two PAN, I am of the considered view f the facts and thus the assessment order dated 23.12.2019 passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act against a surrendered PAN, is invalid and is liable to be quashed and the additions made are directed ated as allowed.” Before us, despite due service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, nor was any application seeking adjournment filed. We, therefore, formed the considered view that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal. ex parte qua the , after duly hearing the submissions advanced by the Printed from counselvise.com 6. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below and perused the material placed on record. From the records, it emerges that the addition in question has been made by the learned Assessing Officer on account of certain investments which were found linked with the Permanent Account Number (PAN) that the assessee claims to have surrendered. It is also observed that during the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee did not respond to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Offi whereupon the assessment came to be completed section 144 read with section 147 of the Act. 6.1 It is a matter of record that the transactions giving rise to the impugned additions emanate from term deposits and investments wherein the surrendered PAN appears to have been quoted. The assessee, being the beneficiary of such transactions, bore the primary onus to explain the nature and source thereof before the Assessing Officer. The mere plea that the said PAN had been surrendered, without substantiating the same contemporaneously before the Assessing Officer, cannot absolve the assessee from discharging the statutory burden cast upon him under the scheme of the Act. 6.2 It is further not borne out from the records that the Assessing Officer, who initiated the reassessment proceedings, had been duly informed or made aware of the alleged surrender of the said PAN. In such circumstances, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in treating Dinesh Jyotichand Jain ITA No. 5460/MUM/2025 We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below and perused the material placed on record. From the records, it emerges that the addition in question has been made by the learned Assessing Officer on account of certain investments which re found linked with the Permanent Account Number (PAN) that the assessee claims to have surrendered. It is also observed that during the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee did not respond to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Offi whereupon the assessment came to be completed section 144 read with section 147 of the Act. It is a matter of record that the transactions giving rise to the impugned additions emanate from term deposits and investments surrendered PAN appears to have been quoted. The assessee, being the beneficiary of such transactions, bore the primary onus to explain the nature and source thereof before the Assessing Officer. The mere plea that the said PAN had been t substantiating the same contemporaneously before the Assessing Officer, cannot absolve the assessee from discharging the statutory burden cast upon him under the scheme It is further not borne out from the records that the Assessing er, who initiated the reassessment proceedings, had been duly informed or made aware of the alleged surrender of the said PAN. In such circumstances, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in treating Dinesh Jyotichand Jain 6 ITA No. 5460/MUM/2025 We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below and perused the material placed on record. From the records, it emerges that the addition in question has been made by the learned Assessing Officer on account of certain investments which re found linked with the Permanent Account Number (PAN) that the assessee claims to have surrendered. It is also observed that during the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee did not respond to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, whereupon the assessment came to be completed ex parte under It is a matter of record that the transactions giving rise to the impugned additions emanate from term deposits and investments surrendered PAN appears to have been quoted. The assessee, being the beneficiary of such transactions, bore the primary onus to explain the nature and source thereof before the Assessing Officer. The mere plea that the said PAN had been t substantiating the same contemporaneously before the Assessing Officer, cannot absolve the assessee from discharging the statutory burden cast upon him under the scheme It is further not borne out from the records that the Assessing er, who initiated the reassessment proceedings, had been duly informed or made aware of the alleged surrender of the said PAN. In such circumstances, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in treating Printed from counselvise.com the assessment as void jurisdiction. It must be appreciated that the instrument of identification and correlation of records, and cannot by itself be equated with the juridical personality of the asses an incorrect PAN, by itself, would not render the proceedings void, but at best constitute an to verification of factual compliance. 6.3 We also find that of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of IncorporationVs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,(supra but he accepted the assessee’s assertion of surrender of PAN at its face value, without any independent Officer or from the Directorate of Systems, Income as to whether such surrender was actually made and duly acknowledged. The absence of such verification, in our considered view, vitiates the appellate findin 6.4 In the totality of the facts and circumstances, and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for a adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall ascertain: Dinesh Jyotichand Jain ITA No. 5460/MUM/2025 the assessment as void ab initio on the ground of want of jurisdiction. It must be appreciated that the PAN is but an instrument of identification, devised for efficient administration and correlation of records, and cannot by itself be equated with the juridical personality of the assessee. An error in quoting or adopting an incorrect PAN, by itself, would not render the proceedings void, but at best constitute an irregularity of a curable nature to verification of factual compliance. We also find that though the ld CIT(A) refereed to the decision he Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shakuntala Sales IncorporationVs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,(supra accepted the assessee’s assertion of surrender of PAN at its face value, without any independent verification from the Assessing Officer or from the Directorate of Systems, Income-tax Department, as to whether such surrender was actually made and duly acknowledged. The absence of such verification, in our considered view, vitiates the appellate finding. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for a adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall ascertain: Dinesh Jyotichand Jain 7 ITA No. 5460/MUM/2025 on the ground of want of PAN is but an , devised for efficient administration and correlation of records, and cannot by itself be equated with the see. An error in quoting or adopting an incorrect PAN, by itself, would not render the proceedings void, irregularity of a curable nature, subject efereed to the decision Shakuntala Sales IncorporationVs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,(supra) accepted the assessee’s assertion of surrender of PAN at its verification from the Assessing tax Department, as to whether such surrender was actually made and duly acknowledged. The absence of such verification, in our considered In the totality of the facts and circumstances, and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for a de novo Printed from counselvise.com 1. Whether the assessee had, in fact, informed the Department or the Assessing Officer concerned regarding the surrender of the PAN in question prior to completion of the reassessment; and 2. Whether, in connection with the impugned term deposits or investments, the surrendered PAN was in fact quoted or reported by the assessee. 6.5 The learned Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to conduct such further enquiries as may be considered necessary and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law. It is needless to add that the assessee shall be afforded due and adequate opportunity of being heard before any final decision is taken. 6.6 Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are for statistical purposes 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 06/11/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Dinesh Jyotichand Jain ITA No. 5460/MUM/2025 Whether the assessee had, in fact, informed the Department or the Assessing Officer concerned regarding the surrender of the PAN in question prior to completion of the reassessment; and connection with the impugned term deposits or investments, the surrendered PAN was in fact quoted or reported by the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to conduct such further enquiries as may be considered necessary and after pass a speaking order in accordance with law. It is needless to add that the assessee shall be afforded due and adequate opportunity of being heard before any final decision is Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are statistical purposes. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. ounced in the open Court on 06/11/2025. Sd/- Sd/ (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dinesh Jyotichand Jain 8 ITA No. 5460/MUM/2025 Whether the assessee had, in fact, informed the Department or the Assessing Officer concerned regarding the surrender of the PAN in question prior to completion of the reassessment; and connection with the impugned term deposits or investments, the surrendered PAN was in fact quoted or The learned Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to conduct such further enquiries as may be considered necessary and after pass a speaking order in accordance with law. It is needless to add that the assessee shall be afforded due and adequate opportunity of being heard before any final decision is Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for /11/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Dinesh Jyotichand Jain ITA No. 5460/MUM/2025 Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Dinesh Jyotichand Jain 9 ITA No. 5460/MUM/2025 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "