Same PAN allotted to two persons, HC asks income tax department to respond
Nov 29, 2022
Synopsis
Justice Prathiba M Singh issued notices and sought responses of the Department of Income Tax, Directorate of Income Tax (System), National Securities Depository Ltd, State Bank of India (SBI) and Credit Information Bureau India Ltd (CIBIL) on the petition.
The Delhi High Court Tuesday sought response of the Income Tax Department on a peculiar case where a man claimed that his Permanent Account Number (PAN) has also been allotted to someone else due to which he is receiving notices from a bank for clearing credit card bills of someone else. The man, who sought directions to the authorities to rectify the defect of issuing two PAN cards with the same number to two different persons, said he is being asked to repay a debt of Rs 2 lakh against the credit card which had not been issued to him.
Justice Prathiba M Singh issued notices and sought responses of the Department of Income Tax, Directorate of Income Tax (System), National Securities Depository Ltd, State Bank of India (SBI) and Credit Information Bureau India Ltd (CIBIL) on the petition.
The high court, which listed the matter for further hearing on April 21, said no coercive steps shall be taken by the bank against the petitioner for not making payments of the credit card.
Advocate Amit Verma, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that due to issuance of his client's PAN to someone else, his credit scores were being affected.
The counsel said the petitioner came to know about the duplicate PAN when on August 15, 2017, he received an income tax notice for the filing of wrong ITR by him.
Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the respondents several times for making the correction but in vein, the plea said.
He sought to direct SBI to remove all his debts as he was not a credit card holder.
The petitioner also sought direction to CIBIL to make correction in his credit score which was reduced without there being any fault on his part.
He also sought compensation for harassment and damage caused to his reputation.
[The Economic Times]
