The Delhi High Court has asked the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to consider and decide a plea seeking prescription of a timeframe for deciding applications for cancellation or surrender of duplicate Permanent Account Numbers (PANs).

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the absence of a prescribed timeframe may cause hardship to taxpayers, particularly in filing Income Tax Returns and availing services linked to PAN.

The Court was dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by one Abhay Gupta seeking directions to the authorities to prescribe a timeframe for deciding applications concerning cancellation of dual PANs.

Gupta relied upon Section 139A(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides that a person can be allotted only one PAN and cannot apply for, obtain or possess another PAN.

He also referred to a CBDT Circular dated March 30, 2022 concerning linking of PAN with Aadhaar, submitting that where a person possesses more than one PAN, the additional PAN is required to be surrendered.

It was submitted that neither the Income-tax Act nor the relevant CBDT circulars prescribe a specific timeframe within which an application for cancellation or surrender of a duplicate PAN is required to be decided by the concerned Assessing Officer.

Gupta also relied upon information obtained under the Right to Information Act, submitting that the response received from the CBDT did not specify any such timeframe.

He further submitted that applicants may face difficulties in filing Income Tax Returns and availing other PAN-linked services while their applications remain pending.

The Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that the prayer for prescribing a definite timeframe essentially amounted to seeking an amendment or modification of the existing rules and administrative framework.

At the same time, it stated that the Revenue was equally concerned that applications for cancellation or surrender of duplicate PANs should not remain pending for an unduly prolonged period and ought to be decided expeditiously.

The Court noted that Gupta had not made any prior representation to the CBDT setting out the grounds for prescribing such a timeframe.

It therefore permitted Gupta to submit a detailed representation to the CBDT within two weeks, setting out the difficulties arising from the absence of a prescribed timeframe.

“In the event such a representation is submitted, the CBDT shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of its receipt. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the Petitioner,” the Court directed.

The PIL was accordingly disposed of.