Court allows Assessee's appeals on incorrect PAN numbers, remands for verification and refunds.

The court allowed the appeals filed by the Assessee against appellate orders related to incorrect PAN numbers on returns and dismissal of the Assessee's appeal. The court found that efforts were made to rectify the mistake, but the Assessing Officer did not properly verify TDS claims or issue refunds despite rectification attempts. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and issuance of refunds. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves appeals filed by the Assessee against appellate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) related to assessment orders under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2008-09.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Issue 1: Incorrect PAN Number on Returns
The Assessee, a Karta of HUF, filed Returns of Income with the wrong PAN Number. Despite various communications for non-receipt of refund dues, the refunds were issued under the wrong PAN Number. The Assessee requested fresh refund orders with the correct PAN Number, but the Assessing Officer rejected the claim stating no return was filed on the correct PAN. The NFAC dismissed the appeal, noting the mistake in quoting the wrong PAN Number.

2. Issue 2: Dismissal of Assessee's Appeal
The NFAC dismissed the Assessee's appeal, stating that the appellant had custody of the refund orders with the wrong PAN Number and suggested a practical resolution for the issue. It was observed that no error was committed by the Assessing Officer, and the grounds of appeal were dismissed.

3. Issue 3: Grounds of Appeal
The Assessee appealed against the appellate orders, citing errors in law and facts, rejection of grievance appeal, failure to grant income tax refund, and not granting interest under section 244A of the Income Tax Act. The Assessee argued for the grant of refunds with applicable interest as a Super Senior Citizen.

4. Judgment and Decision
After considering the submissions and perusing the record, it was noted that though the Assessee quoted the wrong PAN Number, efforts were made to rectify the mistake by returning the original refund orders and filing an Indemnity Bond. The court found that the Assessing Officer did not verify the TDS claims properly and did not refund the money to the Assessee despite the rectification attempts. The matter was set aside back to the Assessing Officer for proper verification and issuance of refunds in accordance with the law. The appeals filed by the Assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24-04-2023.

---