ITO Vs Ram Niwas Gupta (ITAT Agra Bench)
Wrong PAN Cannot Make Wife’s Bank Deposits Husband’s Income-Rs.1.89-Crore Addition u/s 69A Deleted
A reassessment triggered by a misplaced PAN
The assessee, Ram Niwas Gupta, had not filed a return of income for AY 2018-19. His case was reopened through notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2022 on the basis of information that cash aggregating to Rs.1,89,87,500 had been deposited in Bank of Baroda Account No. 27510200000244.
The account was linked in the bank’s reporting system with the assessee’s PAN, ALDPG3241K. Proceeding on this information, the AO treated the cash deposits as belonging to the assessee & made an addition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE.
The assessee, however, maintained that the account did not belong to him at all. It was a current account of M/s Satguru Agency, a proprietary concern of his wife, Smt. Arti Gupta. His name appeared in the account merely because he had been appointed as its authorised signatory.
A clerical error at the account-opening stage
The account had been opened with Bank of Baroda, Sirsaganj Branch, on 10.05.2013 in the name of M/s Satguru Agency. Smt. Arti Gupta was its sole proprietor & held a separate PAN, ANGPA1523K.
The assessee explained that, while opening the account, bank officials had inadvertently recorded his PAN instead of the proprietor’s PAN. Since he was the authorised signatory, his PAN was wrongly carried into the bank’s Statement of Financial Transactions reporting, thereby creating the impression that the account & its cash deposits belonged to him.
