Ritu Rajesh Gohil Vs ITO (ITAT Rajkot)
Woman Holds Two PANs Before and After Marriage, Faces Rs 5.69 Crore Income Addition Over Bank Transactions: ITAT Orders Fresh Verification
Summary: The ITAT Rajkot restored an addition of ₹5,69,88,759 for AY 2018-19 to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination after noting that the assessee had been allotted two PANs. Following reopening, the Assessing Officer obtained bank statements showing cash deposits of ₹4,16,54,500 and credits of ₹1,53,34,259 and, in the absence of compliance, added their aggregate to the assessee’s income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal owing to a delay of 354 days and also directed verification of the two PANs. Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that PAN BGRPG0759A had been allotted before her marriage and PAN AEAPG4798M subsequently, and that income had been disclosed in returns filed under the latter PAN, while bank records relating to the other PAN had also been considered by the Assessing Officer. The Department did not object to restoration for verification.
The Tribunal directed examination of returns, bank statements and assessment records pertaining to both PANs to determine whether the disputed income had already been disclosed and assessed and to avoid duplication. It set aside the impugned order on the issue and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, with a reasonable opportunity of hearing and a direction to the assessee to furnish supporting evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes; the addition was not finally deleted on merits.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAJKOT
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘NFAC’], dated 12.11.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by assessing officer u/s. 147 read with section 144 of the Act, dated 29.03.2024.
02. The brief facts of the case are that, on the basis of specific information regarding transactions undertaken by the assessee with various parties, the assessment was reopened under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, followed by a notice under section 142(1) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, notices were issued to the concerned bank under section 133(6) of the Act. In response, the bank furnished the assessee’s bank statements and informed the Assessing Officer that cash deposits aggregating to Rs.4,16,54,500/- and credits aggregating to Rs.1,53,34,259/- had been recorded in the assessee’s bank account. In the absence of compliance by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made an addition aggregating to Rs.5,69,88,759/- to the total income of the assessee.
03. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT (Appeals), wherein the appeal was dismissed on account of a delay of 354 days in filing the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) also observed that the assessee had two PANS and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the matter in accordance with law.
04. Still, aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before this tribunal.
05. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR stated that the assessee had been allotted two PANs. One PAN, bearing No. BGRPG0759A, had been allotted prior to her marriage, whereas another PAN, bearing No. AEAPG4798M, had subsequently been allotted. It was contended that the assessee had disclosed her income by filing returns of income under PAN No. AEAPG4798M, whereas the bank records relating to the other PAN had also been considered by the Assessing Officer. The assessee, therefore, sought verification of the relevant records to ascertain whether the income and transactions in question had already been disclosed in the returns of income filed by her.
06. The Ld. DR did not object to restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
07. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee had been allotted two PANs, namely, BGRPG0759A and AEAPG4798M. In these circumstances, it is necessary to verify whether the income and transactions forming the subject matter of the impugned addition have been duly disclosed by the assessee in the returns of income filed under PAN No. AEAPG4798M. The relevant bank statements, returns of income and assessment records pertaining to both PANs also require examination to ascertain the correct facts and to avoid any duplication in the assessment of income. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order on the issue under consideration and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and adjudication in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer shall verify the returns of income filed under both PANs, examine the relevant bank records and determine whether the income in question has already been disclosed and assessed. The assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and shall furnish the requisite documentary evidence in support of her claim. The appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the above directions.
08. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 15th day of October, 2026.
