Abhay Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Two PANs, No Exit Deadline: Delhi High Court Directs CBDT to Examine Taxpayers’ Hardship
The controversy
The law prohibits a person from possessing more than one Permanent Account Number. But when a taxpayer seeks to surrender an additional PAN, how long can the application remain pending?
This administrative gap came before the Delhi High Court in a public interest litigation seeking a prescribed timeframe for disposal of applications for cancellation of duplicate PANs.
The Court recognised the hardship that an indefinite wait could cause, particularly in filing income-tax returns and accessing PAN-linked services. It permitted the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the CBDT and directed the Board to decide that representation within eight weeks of receipt.
Crucially, the Court did not itself prescribe a deadline for disposal of individual PAN-cancellation applications.
One person, one PAN—but surrender takes time
The petitioner relied on Section 139A(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pointing out that a person who has already been allotted a PAN cannot apply for, obtain or possess another PAN.
Where more than one PAN has been allotted, the additional PAN must therefore be surrendered. The grievance was that neither the Act nor the CBDT circulars referred to by the petitioner prescribed a definite period within which the concerned Assessing Officer must decide such an application.
The petitioner also referred to CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2022 dated 30 March 2022, concerning PAN–Aadhaar linking. His submission was that a person possessing multiple PANs must surrender the additional PAN before linking the retained PAN with Aadhaar.
Thus, the absence of a disposal timeline was presented as a practical impediment to regularising the taxpayer’s position and accessing services dependent on PAN.
RTI response did not resolve the uncertainty
Before approaching the Court, the petitioner had sought information from the CBDT under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The information sought concerned the procedure for cancellation of a duplicate PAN and the authority responsible for handling such applications. According to the petitioner, the response did not specify any timeframe for deciding them.
The issue raised was therefore broader than the delay in a single taxpayer’s case. The PIL sought an administrative framework under which applicants would know when their requests should be examined and disposed of.
The petitioner submitted that, while an application remained pending, the applicant could encounter difficulties in return filing and other services linked to PAN.
Revenue acknowledged the need for expedition
The Revenue submitted that prescribing a definite timeframe would effectively require an amendment or modification of the applicable rules and administrative framework.
At the same time, it acknowledged the underlying concern. Its counsel stated that applications for cancellation or surrender of duplicate PANs should not remain pending for an unduly prolonged period and ought to be examined and decided by the competent authority with due expedition.
This acknowledgment was significant. The dispute was not about whether applications deserved timely attention, but about the appropriate route for prescribing a definite timeframe.
The Court recognised hardship, but required a representation
The High Court identified the principal grievance as the absence of a prescribed period within which the Assessing Officer must consider and decide a duplicate-PAN cancellation application.
It observed that this absence could cause hardship during the pendency of applications, particularly in relation to income-tax returns and PAN-linked services.
However, the petitioner had not submitted a representation to the CBDT before filing the PIL, explaining the grounds for prescribing such a timeframe.
The Court considered that the grievance could more appropriately be addressed by first allowing the petitioner to place a detailed representation before the Board. It consequently disposed of the PIL through directions for consideration of that representation.
What exactly was directed?
The petitioner was granted liberty to submit a detailed representation within a fortnight, setting out the difficulties arising from the absence of a prescribed timeframe for deciding duplicate-PAN cancellation applications.
If submitted, the CBDT was directed to consider the representation and take an appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within eight weeks from its receipt. The decision must also be communicated to the petitioner.
The distinction matters: eight weeks is the deadline for deciding the representation, not a general deadline imposed on Assessing Officers for cancelling duplicate PANs. Nor did the Court direct the CBDT to necessarily introduce a particular disposal period.
Author’s comments
A taxpayer’s obligation to surrender an additional PAN should be supported by a clear and responsive administrative process. An application without a predictable disposal period leaves the applicant uncertain even after taking steps to correct the position.
The order gives formal recognition to that hardship and requires the CBDT to examine the request for a timeframe. Its immediate effect, however, is procedural: a reasoned representation must be considered and decided within the Court’s stipulated period.
The decision should therefore be reported accurately. It is a direction to examine an administrative gap, not an order requiring every duplicate PAN to be cancelled within eight weeks.
A defined disposal timeline, accompanied by a clear procedure for communicating deficiencies and decisions, would make the surrender process more workable. The obligation is clear; the administrative route for fulfilling it should be equally clear.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
CM APPL. 68004/2026 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 14527/2026
3. The present Public Interest Litigation Petition (“PIL”) has been filed seeking a direction to the Respondent Authorities to prescribe a timeframe for deciding applications for cancellation of dual Permanent Account Numbers (“PAN”).
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Section 139A(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), deals with the PAN of a person and categorically provides that a person can be allotted only one PAN and cannot apply for, obtain or possess another PAN.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner referred to Circular No. 7 of 2022 dated 30.03.2022 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (“CBDT”) in relation to linking of PAN with Aadhaar Card and submitted that where a person possesses more than one PAN, the additional PAN is required to be surrendered before the PAN which is retained can be linked with Aadhaar Card.
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that where a person is allotted more than one PAN, one of the PANs is required to be surrendered. It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that there is no specific timeframe prescribed within the Act or any other Circular issued by the CBDT for deciding any application for cancellation or surrender of a dual PAN by the concerned Assessing Officer.
7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also drew our attention to the information obtained by the Petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”) and submitted that the Petitioner had sought information from CBDT regarding the procedure applicable to cancellation of a dual PAN and the authority responsible for dealing with such applications. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the response received by the Petitioner under the RTI Act did not specify any timeframe within which such applications are required to be decided.
8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that during the pendency of such an application, the applicant is likely to face difficulties in filing the Income-tax Return and availing other services linked to the PAN.
9. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the relief sought by the Petitioner in the present PIL, insofar as it seeks the prescription of a definite timeframe for the consideration and disposal of applications for cancellation of duplicate PANs, is essentially in the nature of a request for an amendment to, or modification of, the applicable rules and administrative framework. Learned Counsel for Revenue further submitted that the Revenue is equally concerned that applications seeking cancellation or surrender of a duplicate PAN should not remain pending for an unduly prolonged period and that such applications ought to be examined and decided by the competent authority with due expedition.
10. The principal grievance raised by the Petitioner in the present PIL arises from the absence of a prescribed timeframe within which an application seeking cancellation of a dual PAN is required to be considered and decided by the concerned Assessing Officer. The absence of such a timeframe may cause hardship to taxpayers during the pendency of their applications, particularly in relation to the filing of Income-tax Returns and the availing of services linked to the PAN.
11. However, since the Petitioner did not, prior to instituting the present PIL, submit any representation to the CBDT setting out the grounds warranting the prescription of a timeframe for deciding applications seeking cancellation of dual PANs, the grievance raised by the Petitioner may be more appropriately addressed by permitting him to submit such a representation.
12. In these circumstances, liberty is granted to the Petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the CBDT within fortnight, setting out the difficulties stated to arise on account of the absence of a prescribed timeframe for deciding applications seeking cancellation of dual PANs.
13. In the event such a representation is submitted, the CBDT shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of its receipt. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the Petitioner.
14. The present PIL is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
