##PAGE1##

5528_DEL_2025_Swarnim Leasing and Holdings Ltd. Delhi

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER

&

SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 5528/DEL/2025 ; Assessment Year: 2017-18

M/s Swarnim Leasing & Vs ITO WARD 22(4)

Holdings Ltd.

C/o R.C. Rai & Associates

203, Akashdeep building,

26A, Barakhamba Road

New Delhi- 01

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

PAN No. AAACS1677C

Assessee Represented by : Shri R.C. Rai, CA

Department Represented by : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansasra, Sr.

DR

Date of Hearing: Date of Pronouncement:

03.02.2026 03.02.2026

ORDER

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [A. M]:

The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against

the orders dated 14.07.2025, by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, New Delhi u/s 250 of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for A.Y.

2017-18.

2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee states that the

assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act. The Ld. Counsel of the

1 | Page

5528_DEL_2025_Swarnim Leasing and Holdings Ltd. Delhi

assessee claimed that the assessee had two PANs: one “AAACS1677C”

which is regularly used and has been used for filing ITR for A.Y. 2017-18.

The other is PAN “AAPCS6200E” which has been used in the Bank

account. In the said bank account, the assessee made cash deposits

during the demonetization period in A.Y. 2017-18. Since the AO issued

notices for PAN “AAPCS6200E”, the same remained to be complied. The

AO framed the assessment in PAN “AAACS1677C” instead of PAN

“AAACS1677C”. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has invoked the

power u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act and set-aide the file to the AO for fresh

assessment which is not justified.

3. Per contra, the Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee was using

two PANs and therefore, the decision taken by Ld. CIT(A), setting aside

the issue to the AO, was justified.

4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant

materials on record. We are of the considered view that the assessee

was maintaining two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs) which

is prohibited in India under Section 139A(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,

regardless of whether the second PAN was obtained by mistake. It is

prohibited for any person, including individuals, firms, or companies, to

possess, use, or obtain more than one PAN. We also find that the

assessee has not initiated any action to cancel the other PAN.

2 | Page

5528_DEL_2025_Swarnim Leasing and Holdings Ltd. Delhi

5. In view of the fact that the assessee case has been set aside to the

AO for fresh adjudication u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act, we therefore, find no

reason to interfere with the decision of the Ld. CIT(A). Ground of appeal

are dismissed.

6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 5528/Del/25 is

dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03.02.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (NAVEEN CHANDRA)

JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 5^th FEBRUARY,2026

Pooja Mittal

Copy forwarded to:

1. Appellant

2. Respondent

3. CIT

4. CIT(A)

5. DR

Asstt. Registrar,

ITAT, New Delhi

3 | Page