Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Dr. Sachin Kumar, learned Sr. AR on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that, the reasons given by the appellant company for delay in filing of the appeal before the First Appellate Authority does not come under 'reasonable cause' for condoning huge delay in filing of the appeal. Further, the appellant company claims that due to mistakes in allotment of PAN, there are two PANs existing in the name of Company i.e., one in the status of 'Firm' and another in the status of 'Company'. The appellant company claims that it has reported transactions under new PAN in the status of 'Company'. However, facts with regard to transactions carried-out by the appellant ITA.Nos.247 to 252/Hyd./2025 company for import of goods is not verified by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he submitted that, the matter may be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the claim of appellant company with relevant evidences and to decide the issue in accordance with law.

6. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the appellant company has been allotted PAN AABFL2747E in the status of 'Firm', although, the appellant company is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is also not in dispute that, the appellant company has surrendered the old PAN and has obtained the new PAN from assessment year 2007-2008 which is evident from PAN card issued by the Department by new PAN AAACL8515G. Further, it is also not in dispute that, the appellant company has filed it's return of income right from assessment year 2007-2008 under new PAN in the status of 'Company' and the Department has assessed the appellant as a company, which is evident from the ITA.Nos.247 to 252/Hyd./2025 assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment years 2015-2016 and 2017-2018 where the Assessing Officer has assessed the appellant company in the status of a 'Company' under PAN AAACL8515G. Therefore, the impugned assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under old PAN AABFL2747E needs to be examined in light of facts brought on record to ascertain whether it is duplicate assessment or the transactions reported in the said PAN recorded in the regular books of accounts of the appellant company reported in the relevant bank statement filed for the assessment years 2015-2016 and 2017-2018. Going by the evidences placed on record, including relevant assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2016-2017 u/sec.148A(d) of the Act dated 30.03.2023, it is an undisputed fact that, there are two Pan nos. in the name of the appellant company i.e., one in the status of 'Firm' and the other in the status of 'Company'. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant facts and also evidences placed by the appellant company has accepted the fact that, ITA.Nos.247 to 252/Hyd./2025 there is a duplicate PAN in the status of 'Firm' and transactions reported in the old PAN no. are already considered by the appellant company in the new PAN and, therefore, there is no need of fresh assessment. A similar order has been passed for the assessment year 2018-2019 where the Assessing Officer has accepted the argument of the appellant company in light of two PAN nos. and passed Rs.NIL assessment order without making any additions towards transactions reported under old PAN. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that, there are two PAN numbers in the name of the appellant company i.e., one in the status of 'Firm' which is still active and the other in the status of 'Company' , which the assessee appellant company has been using for filing it's return of income. We do not know, whether it is the mistake of the appellant company or the Department. Although, the appellant company claims that, the Department mistakenly allotted PAN in the status of 'Firm' and the appellant company has surrendered the said PAN, but, the fact remains that the old PAN is still active. In fact, the Counsel for the Assessee himself ITA.Nos.247 to 252/Hyd./2025 admitted the fact that, the appellant company has not carried-out relevant amendments to import and export Code nos. allotted by the DGFT by incorporating new PAN. Since the appellant company has not carried-out relevant amendments by incorporating new PAN in IEC Code, the DGFT has reported import and export transactions under old PAN to the Income Tax Department. The Department on the basis of information received from the DGFT has issued notice to the appellant company u/sec.148A of the Act, but, the assessee neither responded nor filed any details. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has passed the best judgment assessment order u/sec.144 r.w.s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for both the assessment years and made additions towards transactions reported by the DGFT. Since the appellant company has already filed return of income under new PAN AAACL8515G for both the assessment years and further for both the assessment years, the Department has passed assessment orders u/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, under new PAN, in our considered view, the assessment order passed by the ITA.Nos.247 to 252/Hyd./2025 Assessing Officer u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act in old PAN for both the assessment years cannot survive, provided, the transactions reported by the DGFT in old PAN are already considered and accounted by the appellant company in their books of accounts. Since the appellant company was not aware of the proceedings initiated by the Department u/sec.148A of the Act and it came to know only during the proceedings for the assessment year 2016-2017 before the Assessing Officer, in our considered view, the delay in filing of the appeal before the learned CIT(A) needs to be condoned for both the assessment years because, there is 'sufficient and reasonable cause' for the appellant company for not filing the appeals on or before the "due date" provided under the Act. Thus, we condone the delay in filing of the appeals before the learned CIT(A) for both the assessment years. Further, since there are two PAN nos. in the name of the appellant company, in our considered view, the matter needs to be verified by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer in light of our discussion hereinabove to ascertain the fact with regard to the transactions reported by the DGFT under old ITA.Nos.247 to 252/Hyd./2025 PAN, whether the said transactions are already accounted by the appellant company in their books of accounts or not ? Thus, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) for both the assessment years and restore the issue to the file of jurisdictional Assessing Officer for further verification. The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the issue in light of our discussion hereinabove and also any other evidences that may be filed by the appellant company to substantiate it's case.