S. Senthil Vs CIT (Madras High Court)
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the authorities to consider his representation dated 23 June 2022 and to issue him a fresh PAN card with a new PAN number. The petitioner had originally been issued PAN BLUPS2797G on 18 May 2007. However, the same PAN was again allotted on 17 May 2012 to another individual whose name was also Subramaniyan Senthil, son of Subramaniyan. The second allottee, using the same PAN number, had availed loans and defaulted, causing negative remarks in CIBIL. When the petitioner subsequently applied for loans, financial institutions declined his applications because the CIBIL records linked to the PAN reflected defaults committed by the second allottee.
The petitioner had earlier submitted a representation alleging fraud and misuse of his PAN identity. Upon investigation, the Income Tax Department allotted a fresh PAN (PUWPS0015L) to the second allottee on 1 July 2022. However, since the negative CIBIL remarks remained attached to the original PAN, the petitioner continued to suffer adverse consequences, as his financial credibility remained affected. Consequently, the petitioner requested that he be issued a fresh PAN number. The respondents declined the request, relying on Instruction No. 9 dated 25 March 2021 issued by the Directorate of Income Tax (Systems), which provides that the first allottee will retain the original PAN, and the second allottee will be allotted a fresh PAN. The instruction further states that the respective allottee must surrender the PAN erroneously allotted and apply for a new one as per prescribed procedure.
