Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: two pan in Ganesh Kumar vs Income Tax Officer on 10 October, 2023Matching Fragments
The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the assessment order passed by the respondent dated 29.09.2021 under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and to quash the same.
2. The brief facts of the case is as follows :-
i) The petitioner is an assessee on the files of the respondent under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred to as 'I.T. Act' and he has been regularly filing his return of income as per the provisions of said Act. The petitioner has got two PAN Cards, one PAN Card bearing No.AZNPG3136D has been used for bank transaction, and another PAN Card bearing No.AEQPG5384P has been used by the petitioner for filing his return of income. Thereafter, on professional advice, he had surrendered PAN AZNPG3136D.
4. On the other hand, Mr.B.Ramaswamy, the learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondent would submit that during the demonetization period, which pertains to the financial year 2016-17, the petitioner made a substantial cash deposits of Rs.10,00,000/ and as per the information of AIMS for the AY 2017-18 in respect of PAN AZNPG3136D, the petitioner had filed no tax return and hence, a notice under Section 142 (1) dated 09.03.2018 was issued to the petitioner calling for filing return of income for assessment year 2017-18, pursuant to which, assessee (petitioner)appeared and admitted that he had two PANs in his name and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis that he had used PAN AZNPG3134P for filing return of income for all assessment years and surrendered PAN AZNPG3136D, however, since the petitioner obtained two PANs, he was imposed with penalty. Thereafter, as per the notification issued by CBDT dated 13.08.2020, the petitioner's files were transferred from physical assessment mode to NFAC to make through the faceless assessment mode and NFAC also issued number of notices under Section 148 and 142 (1) on 28.07.2021, 06.08.2021 and 26.08.2021 for which, the petitioner failed to give any response.
5. Refuting to the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as already stated above, petitioner is an illiterate and the petitioner was not aware of as to when the assessment proceedings were transferred from physical mode to faceless assessment mode, and when it was re-transferred to physical mode and all such things since none of the notices that were stated to have been issued through the web portal were served on the petitioner directly through physical mode of communication. Further, it is submitted that, since the petitioner, on receipt of notice issued in respect of initiation of proceedings under Section 142 (1) dated 09.03.2018 appeared before the respondent and explained the reason for obtaining two PANs and also explained the reason in regard to the query https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis raised by the respondent in regard to unexplained investment made by him during the demonetization period to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- by furnishing all required documents with regard to the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction made and since there was no notice received by the petitioner for nearly two years, the petitioner was under an impression that the proceedings initiated under Section 142 (1) vide notice 09.03.2018 might have been closed/dropped, but only when the petitioner received the show cause notices dated 17.09.2021, the petitioner came to know that the proceedings dated 09.03.2018 was dropped, however, the petitioner has not been served with any notice as regards the closure proceedings dated 09.03.2018.
6. I have given due considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
7. The petitioner is an illiterate person and unwittingly, he had obtained two Permanent Account Numbers, viz., AEQPG5384P and AZNPG3136D (for which, the Department also has to be blamed). The petitioner used to file Income Tax Returns for all the assessment years only by using AEQPG5384P and accordingly for AY 2017-18, the petitioner filed returns stating his gross total income at Rs.4,42,000/-. However, based on an information from AIMS, which shows that no ITR was filed by the petitioner in respect of PAN AZNPG3136D, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 142 (1) of I.T. Act and notice dated 09.03.2018 was issued calling upon the petitioner to file ITR for AY 2017- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18 and pursuant thereto, the petitioner was summoned by the respondent- Department on 22.05.2019, to appear before them on 06.06.2019. The petitioner, on receipt of such notice and summon, appeared before the respondent along with his Chartered Accountant and explained that he has been regular in filing ITRs and produced all necessary documents as proof and also explained the reason for having obtained two PANs and surrendered PAN AZNPG3136D, for which, the respondent-Department also initiated penalty proceedings and said penalty proceedings are pending. So far as the query raised by the respondent with regard to the cash deposit made by the petitioner during the demonetization period to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- for the financial year 2016-17, pertaining to AY 2017-18 is concerned, the petitioner explained that he has a received a gift of Rs.7,00,000/- from his wife; Rs.8,00,000/- from his mother and Rs.12,00,000/- from his father; and also filed documents, enclosing the affidavit of his father, mother and wife.