Rajesh Maan Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
WRONG PAN CANNOT CREATE THE RIGHT DEMAND—4,442-DAY DELAY CONDONED & STRANGER’S TAX DELETED
The Delhi ITAT has held that tax relating to another person cannot be recovered from an assessee merely because that person accidentally quoted the assessee’s PAN in his return. Even though the appeal was filed after an extraordinary delay of 4,442 days, the delay was condoned because the assessee became aware of the error only when recovery proceedings commenced. Since the demand admittedly did not belong to the assessee, it was deleted instead of remanding the matter.
A return belonging to someone else
The assessee, Rajesh Maan, had actual income of ₹2,15,649 for AY 2011-12.
However, another person, Mr. Rohit Maan, having total income of ₹15,99,880, filed his return for the same assessment year by mistakenly mentioning the PAN belonging to the assessee.
Because the incorrect PAN was entered in the return, the CPC processed Mr. Rohit Maan’s income in the assessee’s PAN & raised the consequential demand against the assessee.
Thus, although the income, employment & return belonged to Mr. Rohit Maan, the tax liability was electronically attached to the assessee merely because of an incorrect PAN entry.
Corrected return did not correct the demand
Mr. Rohit Maan subsequently realised the mistake & filed a revised return using the correct PAN.
Despite the correction, the Department continued to process or retain the original erroneous return under the assessee’s PAN. The resulting demand therefore remained outstanding against the wrong taxpayer.
The assessee was unaware that another person’s return had been processed in her PAN. No immediate remedial proceedings were initiated because the existence of the erroneous demand itself was not known.
The mistake came to light only when the Department initiated recovery proceedings against the assessee.
After discovering the problem & following up with the Income-tax Department, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A).
CIT(A) stops at 4,442 days
The first appeal was delayed by 4,442 days.
The CIT(A) treated the delay as enormous & declined to condone it. The appeal was consequently dismissed in limine without examining whether the income or tax demand actually belonged to the assessee.
The merits of the PAN mismatch, the revised return filed by Mr. Rohit Maan & the impossibility of recovering his tax liability from the assessee were therefore left undecided.
The assessee challenged this dismissal before the ITAT.
Evidence placed before the Tribunal
The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the circumstances that caused the delay.
The erroneous return filed by Mr. Rohit Maan using the assessee’s PAN was also produced. In addition, the assessee furnished the corrected return subsequently filed by him under the proper PAN.
The paper book contained Mr. Rohit Maan’s Form No. 16, showing that he was an employee of SpiceJet Ltd. This supported the assessee’s case that the salary income & return processed by the CPC belonged to Mr. Rohit Maan rather than the assessee.
The assessee argued that she had no connection with the income of ₹15,99,880 & could not have challenged the demand earlier because she remained unaware of its existence until recovery proceedings were initiated.
It was therefore requested that the delay be condoned & the wrongful demand be deleted.
Revenue opposes condonation
The Revenue supported the CIT(A)’s order & contended that a delay of 4,442 days could not be condoned without a proper explanation.
According to the Revenue, the prolonged inaction justified rejection of the appeal on limitation.
ITAT finds an apparent PAN error
The Tribunal examined both returns & found a clear mistake apparent from the record.
Mr. Rohit Maan had entered the assessee’s PAN while filing his return. He had subsequently corrected that mistake by filing a revised return.
The Form No. 16 also demonstrated that the income in question arose from Mr. Rohit Maan’s employment with SpiceJet Ltd. There was no factual foundation for attributing that income or its tax liability to the assessee.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the delay was substantial. However, the decisive consideration was that the demand sought to be recovered did not belong to the assessee at all.
When the underlying liability belonged to another taxpayer, the Department could not recover it from the wrong person merely because the remedial proceeding was initiated belatedly.
Demand deleted directly
The ITAT held that a wrong taxpayer should not be subjected to hardship on a purely technical ground.
The assessee’s explanation that the mistake became known only upon initiation of recovery proceedings was accepted. The delay of 4,442 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was accordingly condoned.
Since the documentary record conclusively established the PAN mismatch & the factual matrix was already in the assessee’s favour, the Tribunal did not send the matter back to the CIT(A).
It directly deleted the demand & allowed the assessee’s appeal.
Author’s comments
The decision places substantive tax liability above procedural limitation. Limitation can prevent stale claims, but it cannot legitimise collection of tax from a person who never earned the income.
Article 265 of the Constitution permits collection of tax only by authority of law. A data-entry error in another person’s return is not legal authority to assess or recover that person’s tax from the PAN holder.
The case also shows why a corrected return does not always cleanse the earlier electronic trail. Where the original return is filed under somebody else’s PAN, CPC records may continue to reflect income & demand against the wrong taxpayer. Immediate rectification u/s 154, grievance proceedings, jurisdictional AO correspondence & documentary linkage with the actual taxpayer are therefore essential.
There are minor inconsistencies in the order regarding the spelling of “Maan/Mann” & pronouns used for the assessee, but these do not affect the ruling.
The delay was 4,442 days, but the income never belonged to the assessee for even one day. The Tribunal rightly refused to convert a wrong PAN into a permanent tax liability.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT, DELHI BENCH
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 10.03.2026 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee an individual having PAN ‘AMKPM7803K’ had actual income of Rs.2,15,649/-. However, while filing the return of one Mr Rohit Maan having a total income of Rs.15,99,880/- had filed return of income for Assessment Year 2011-12 by wrongly mentioning PAN of the assessee. The above return of income was processed by the CPC and the relevant demand was raised against the above said PAN, relates to the assessee. Meantime, Mr. Rohit Mann had revised his return of income by correcting the above mistake. Still the Revenue has processed the wrong ROI, which was in the name of the assessee. The assessee was not aware of the above facts and only when the recovery proceedings were initiated, he came to know of the demand and after following up with income tax department, he proceeded to file an appeal before Ld CIT(A), Thane.
3. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine, for the reason that the assessee had filed the appeal with a huge delay of 4442 days. Ld CIT(A) has not ventured into merits of the case.
4. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee filed affidavit of the assessee which is placed on record and also brought to our notice ITR of Rohit Mann, which was filed with the wrong PAN (of the assessee) and corrected ITR of Mr. Rohit Mann. He submitted that the tax demand raised are not relating to the assessee and pleaded that the same must by deleted and delay may be condoned as the assessee was not aware of such demand existed.
5. On the other hand, Ld DR supported the findings of Ld CIT(A), such huge delay cannot be condoned with the proper explanations.
6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and both the return of income submitted before us, I observe that there is a mistake apparent on record while filing the return of income of one Mr. Rohit Maan, who had wrongly filled the PAN of the assessee while filing his return of income, it is also observed that Rohit Maan is an employee of M/s Spicejet Ltd and the relevant form 16 was also filed in the paper book. Subsequently, he revised his return of income.
7. After considering the above facts on record, I observe that no doubt there is substantial delay in filing the appeal but the demand raised by the Revenue is not belongs to the assessee and when the liability is not belongs to the assessee, in our view, the same cannot be invoked or recovered any tax unduly from the wrong assessee even though there is substantial delay in taking remedial measures. In our considered view, wrong taxpayer cannot be put to difficulty on the technical grounds, therefore, I am inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before Ld CIT(A) and since factual matrix is favour of the assessee, I am inclined to delete the demand. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 9th day of September, 2026.
