Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 4- proceedings void ab initio. It was further contended that all income, expenditure, bank transactions, and TDS details of the trust were duly reflected in the audited financial statements and the return filed under the valid PAN i.e. AAATR5288B.

7. The learned CIT(A) called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. In his report, the AO reiterated that no return had been filed in response to the notice under section 148 and that the deposits remained unexplained. However, he admitted that there existed two PANs in the name of the assessee and that the information triggering the reopening had emanated from the old PAN (AAATR2081G). The assessee, in rejoinder, submitted that once the old PAN had been formally surrendered and the department was aware of the valid operative PAN, any proceedings initiated on the basis of the surrendered PAN were jurisdictionally defective.

11. During the course of hearing before us, the learned Authorised Representative ("AR") for the assessee reiterated the factual matrix of the case and submitted that the entire assessment proceedings were vitiated on account of jurisdictional defect inasmuch as the notice under section 148 had been issued on a surrendered PAN. It was explained that the assessee-trust had originally been allotted two PANs, namely AAATR2081G (old) and AAATR5288B (new), and that the old PAN had been formally surrendered on 26.07.2012. The said surrender was duly acknowledged by the Income Tax Department, and all subsequent returns of income, including for the assessment year under consideration, were filed under the valid and operative PAN AAATR5288B.

13. The learned Departmental Representative ("DR"), on the other hand, relied upon the findings and reasoning recorded by the learned CIT(A). It was submitted that the learned CIT(A), after examining the record and considering the assessee's submissions, had taken a balanced view by setting aside the assessment order and restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The DR further pointed out that the names appearing on the two PANs were not identical, which, according to the Department, created ambiguity regarding the identity of the assessee in whose case the bank Shri Rushabhdev Swetambar Murtipujak Jain Sanghvs.ITO(E) Asst.Year -2012-13

- 11- which could not be properly adjudicated in absence of complete evidence. We see no error in such approach.

21. As regards the grounds challenging the validity of reassessment (Grounds Nos. 2 to 4), we hold that the reopening was based on tangible material in the form of departmental information showing large deposits under an active PAN. The existence of two PANs with slightly differing names and corresponding TDS credits creates genuine complexity, and in such factual circumstances, the action of the AO in issuing notice under section 148 cannot be faulted. These grounds are, therefore, dismissed.