आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:302)ी (cid:874)वजय पाल राव, उपाÚ य¢ एव ं (cid:302)ी मधुसदू न साव(cid:875)डया, लेखा सदè य के सम¢ । BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.1157 & 1158/Hyd./2025 िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year 2012-2013 Kiran Reddy Muddasani, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 035. Ward-9(3), vs.

Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 004.

PAN BFTPM6705H Telangana.

(Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by: Sri P. Vinod, Advocate राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 15.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17.10.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

These two appeals ITA Nos.1157 & 1158/Hyd./2025 by the Assessee are directed against the two separate orders of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, both dated 26.05.2025 arising from assessment order passed u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and penalty order passed u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"], respectively, for the assessment year 2012-2013.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in the quantum appeal ITA.No.1157/Hyd./2025 as under :

1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and unsustainable in law apart from being passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

2. Without prejudice, the Id. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant as infructuous on the ground that assessment order is passed with Old PAN, and the appeal is filed with New PAN.

3. The Id. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without putting the appellant on notice about the defect. The Id. CIT(A) further erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous after filing written submissions, calling for remand report from AO, and reply to remand report filed by Appellant on merits. The Id. CIT(A) ought to have given opportunity to the Appellant to explain the legal position.

4. The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant was issued with NEW PAN in place of OLD PAN, and that Appellant is filing return of incomes regularly on the NEW PAN since asst. year

2009-10 onwards.

For these and other grounds that may be urged with the leave of the Hon'ble ITAT, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed.”

3. The assessee has raised the following grounds in penalty appeal ITA.No.1158/Hyd./2025 :

1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and unsustainable in law apart from being passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

2. Without prejudice, the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant as infructuous on the ground that assessment order is passed with Old PAN, and the appeal is filed with New PAN.

3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without putting the appellant on notice about the defect. The Id. CIT(A) ought to have given opportunity to the Appellant to explain the legal position.

4. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant was issued with NEW PAN in place of OLD PAN, and that Appellant is filing return of incomes regularly on the NEW PAN since asst. year

2009-10 onwards.

For these and other grounds that may be urged with the leave of the Hon'ble ITAT, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed.

4. In the quantum appeal [ITA.No.1157/Hyd./2025], the learned AR of the Assessee submitted that the assessee is an individual deriving income from catering business and also filed the return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.2,20,860/- after claiming deductions under Chapter-VIA. The return of income was filed by the assessee under PAN :

BFTPM6705H. The learned AR has submitted that the assessee was also having a old PAN : AQOPK2022J, however, the same was lost by the ass