9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1- 2002 to up-to assessment year 2006-2007 under PAN AABFL2747E. Thereafter, the appellant company was informed that the PAN AABFL2747E allotted by the Income Tax Department had been wrongly allotted under the 'Firm' category and accordingly, the appellant company has surrendered the old PAN AABFL2747E and has obtained new PAN card with PAN AAACL8515G. Since then, the appellant company has filed it's return of income right from 2007-2008 under the new PAN AAACL8515G and all it's assessments have been done under the new PAN in the category of 'Company'. 3. Subsequently, the case of the appellant company for the assessment year 2016-2017 has been reopened u/sec.148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"] on the ground that information on record for the financial year 2015-2016 relevant to assessment year 2016-2017 reveals that, the appellant company made bill of entry for imports for assessable value of Rs. 1,49,88,139/- and accordingly, notice u/sec.148A(b) of the Act dated 27.02.2023 was issued to the appellant company. The appellant company has furnished reply to the notice and stated that it is in the business of import and export of cashew nuts and coffee beans, UPVC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever, from the assessment year 2007-2008, the appellant company has taken correct PAN and has filed it's return of income under new PAN. The return of income filed by the appellant company has been assessed and assessment order has been passed u/sec.143(3) for the assessment years 2015-2016 and 2017-2018. However, because of reporting requirement from the DGFT, the Authorities have reported import of goods under old PAN for the assessment years 2015-2016 and 2017-2018 which was not noticed by the appellant company. The Department has reopened the assessment and since the appellant company has not responded to the notice, an ex-parte assessment order was passed for both the assessment years and made additions towards transactions reported by the DGFT. Further, the appellant company was not having knowledge of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and only after persuasion with the Department and after obtaining credentials, the appellant company has taken steps to file appeal before the learned CIT(A)/First Appellate Authority, which resulted in delay of 585 days. Further, the said delay is neither intentional nor wanton or for any undue benefit, but, beyond the contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the appellant as a company, which is evident from the 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, there is a duplicate PAN in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
