The CIT(A) refused me the benefit of the PAN-Aadhaar circular because he said I was relying on the wrong circular. Is there a Tribunal order that simply directs the officer to apply the extended date?
Yes. The Delhi Bench set aside both the s.200A intimation and the CIT(A) order and directed the Assessing Officer to give the assessee the extended benefit of the CBDT circular of 23 April 2024 and pass a fresh order. It is a short order and the relief is a direction to apply the circular, not a deletion of the demand outright.
Decided by the ITAT (Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member and Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member) on 2026-01-30, reported as ITA No. 2895/Del/2025, assessment year 2025-26 (ITAT Delhi Bench 'B'); heard 27 January 2026, pronounced 30 January 2026. It bears on section 206AA, section 206CC, section 200A, section 139AA of the Income Tax Act 1961, in TDS Defaults, Demand, Recovery & Stay and Appeals matters.
This is the cleanest authority for the proposition that a first appellate authority cannot refuse the circular benefit on the footing that the assessee cited the earlier circular: the Bench recorded that the CIT(A) had 'non-suited the assessee reliance on Circular No.3 of 2023 dated 28.03.2023', and then simply directed that the extended benefit of the 23 April 2024 circular be given. Circular No. 6/2024 is in terms a partial modification of and in continuation of Circular No. 3/2023, so a reference to one is a reference to the scheme, and the point is worth taking wherever an order turns on which circular was named. The practical shape of the relief matters too: this is a set-aside and a direction, not a deletion, so the assessee still has to satisfy the Assessing Officer on the facts the circular requires — that the transaction was entered into within the window and that the deductee's PAN became operative by the relevant date. Note also that the assessee's explanation was technical glitches and bona fide delay, and the Bench did not need to decide whether that would have been a defence on its own; nothing in this order supports a hardship argument outside the circular.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Tax was deducted and deposited against the deductee's permanent account number, but the deductee's Aadhaar number was not linked with that permanent account number. The assessee's case was that this was due to technical glitches and that the delay was bona fide. An intimation under section 200A dated 9 June 2024 raised a demand taking an adverse view on that footing, and the National Faceless Appeal Centre sustained it by order dated 3 April 2025. Before the Tribunal, counsel relied on Circular No. 6/2024 dated 23 April 2024, by which the Board had examined the earlier Circular No. 3 of 2023 dated 28 March 2023 on the consequences of a permanent account number becoming inoperative under rule 114AAA and had specified that where the permanent account number becomes operative as a result of linkage with Aadhaar on or before 31 May 2024 there shall be no liability on the deductor or collector to deduct or collect tax under section 206AA or section 206CC, the deduction or collection mandated by the other provisions of the Chapter being applicable instead. The Bench recorded that the CIT(A) had non-suited the assessee's reliance on Circular No. 3 of 2023.
The Bench was inclined to sustain the grounds. The impugned orders were set aside and the Assessing Officer was directed to give the assessee the extended benefit of the CBDT circular dated 23 April 2024 and to pass an order afresh (para 4).
The Bench identified the issue as one where tax had been deposited against the deductee's permanent account number but the Aadhaar number had not been linked, so that the demand followed from the intimation under section 200A. It then took up counsel's reliance on Circular No. 6/2024 dated 23 April 2024, which examined Circular No. 3 of 2023 on the consequences of an inoperative permanent account number under rule 114AAA and relieved the deductor or collector of liability under section 206AA or section 206CC where the number becomes operative on or before 31 May 2024. Having noted that the CIT(A) had refused the assessee the benefit of his reliance on Circular No. 3 of 2023, the Bench held that the grounds should be sustained and that the correct course was to set aside the orders and direct the Assessing Officer to apply the extended benefit of the later circular and decide afresh. No reasoning on the technical-glitch explanation was recorded, and none was needed once the circular applied.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to sustain the grounds. The impugned orders are set aside, Assessing Officer directed to give assessee the extended benefit of the Circular of CBDT dated 23.04.2024 and pass an order afresh.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppYes. The Delhi Bench set aside both the s.200A intimation and the CIT(A) order and directed the Assessing Officer to give the assessee the extended benefit of the CBDT circular of 23 April 2024 and pass a fresh order. It is a short order and the relief is a direction to apply the circular, not a deletion of the demand outright. This was decided by the ITAT (Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member and Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member) and bears on section 206AA, section 206CC, section 200A, section 139AA of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 2895/Del/2025, assessment year 2025-26 (ITAT Delhi Bench 'B'); heard 27 January 2026, pronounced 30 January 2026. This is the cleanest authority for the proposition that a first appellate authority cannot refuse the circular benefit on the footing that the assessee cited the earlier circular: the Bench recorded that the CIT(A) had 'non-suited the assessee reliance on Circular No.3 of 2023 dated 28.03.2023', and then simply directed that the extended benefit of the 23 April 2024 circular be given. Circular No. 6/2024 is in terms a partial modification of and in continuation of Circular No. 3/2023, so a reference to one is a reference to the scheme, and the point is worth taking wherever an order turns on which circular was named. The practical shape of the relief matters too: this is a set-aside and a direction, not a deletion, so the assessee still has to satisfy the Assessing Officer on the facts the circular requires — that the transaction was entered into within the window and that the deductee's PAN became operative by the relevant date. Note also that the assessee's explanation was technical glitches and bona fide delay, and the Bench did not need to decide whether that would have been a defence on its own; nothing in this order supports a hardship argument outside the circular. If it applies to you, the first step is this: If your appeal was rejected because you cited Circular No. 3/2023 rather than Circular No. 6/2024, take this order: the Bench treated that as no answer and directed the benefit to be given.
Tax was deducted and deposited against the deductee's permanent account number, but the deductee's Aadhaar number was not linked with that permanent account number. The assessee's case was that this was due to technical glitches and that the delay was bona fide. An intimation under section 200A dated 9 June 2024 raised a demand taking an adverse view on that footing, and the National Faceless Appeal Centre sustained it by order dated 3 April 2025. Before the Tribunal, counsel relied on Circular No. 6/2024 dated 23 April 2024, by which the Board had examined the earlier Circular No. 3 of 2023 dated 28 March 2023 on the consequences of a permanent account number becoming inoperative under rule 114AAA and had specified that where the permanent account number becomes operative as a result of linkage with Aadhaar on or before 31 May 2024 there shall be no liability on the deductor or collector to deduct or collect tax under section 206AA or section 206CC, the deduction or collection mandated by the other provisions of the Chapter being applicable instead. The Bench recorded that the CIT(A) had non-suited the assessee's reliance on Circular No. 3 of 2023. The matter was decided on 2026-01-30 by the ITAT (Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member and Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The Bench was inclined to sustain the grounds. The impugned orders were set aside and the Assessing Officer was directed to give the assessee the extended benefit of the CBDT circular dated 23 April 2024 and to pass an order afresh (para 4).
The Bench identified the issue as one where tax had been deposited against the deductee's permanent account number but the Aadhaar number had not been linked, so that the demand followed from the intimation under section 200A. It then took up counsel's reliance on Circular No. 6/2024 dated 23 April 2024, which examined Circular No. 3 of 2023 on the consequences of an inoperative permanent account number under rule 114AAA and relieved the deductor or collector of liability under section 206AA or section 206CC where the number becomes operative on or before 31 May 2024. Having noted that the CIT(A) had refused the assessee the benefit of his reliance on Circular No. 3 of 2023, the Bench held that the grounds should be sustained and that the correct course was to set aside the orders and direct the Assessing Officer to apply the extended benefit of the later circular and decide afresh. No reasoning on the technical-glitch explanation was recorded, and none was needed once the circular applied. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to sustain the grounds. The impugned orders are set aside, Assessing Officer directed to give assessee the extended benefit of the Circular of CBDT dated 23.04.2024 and pass an order afresh." The decision followed or applied CBDT Circular No. 6/2024 dated 23 April 2024 — applied; CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2023 dated 28 March 2023 — considered.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2026-01-30 and is reported as ITA No. 2895/Del/2025, assessment year 2025-26 (ITAT Delhi Bench 'B'); heard 27 January 2026, pronounced 30 January 2026. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 206AA, section 206CC, section 200A, section 139AA, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The Bench was inclined to sustain the grounds. The impugned orders were set aside and the Assessing Officer was directed to give the assessee the extended benefit of the CBDT circular dated 23 April 2024 and to pass an order afresh (para 4). It arises in TDS Defaults, Demand, Recovery & Stay and Appeals matters, on section 206AA, section 206CC, section 200A, section 139AA of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member and Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Ask, in terms, for a set-aside with a direction to the Assessing Officer to apply the circular, which is the relief actually granted here, rather than for outright deletion, which was not. Have ready for the remand the two facts the circular turns on — the date the transaction was entered into and the date the deductee's PAN became operative — with documentary proof of each. Where the intimation is under s.200A, note that both the intimation and the appellate order were set aside together; do not accept an order that leaves the s.200A intimation standing. Read the order's summary of Circular No. 6/2024 with care and check it against the circular's own text — see the editor note; the paraphrase in the order does not match the circular.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. The citator search (doc 47719350, confirmed as 'Parul Sharma, Faridabad vs ITO (TDS) Noida, Noida on 30 January, 2026') returns nothing. A second probe on the name across High Courts returned 1,781 decisions, none of them an income-tax, TDS or inoperative-PAN matter and none this assessee. The reliance on CBDT Circular 6/2024 to relieve a deductor of short-deduction demand where the deductee's PAN was inoperative has attracted no later treatment. Nothing overruling, doubting or distinguishing it was found, and no appeal to a High Court against it is disclosed on the record searched. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The order is four numbered paragraphs long, the disposal being at para 4. One material defect must be flagged. At para 3 the Bench summarises Circular No. 6/2024 as specifying that the consequences in Circular No. 3 of 2023 'shall be applicable for transactions entered beyond 31.03.2024'. The circular itself, as reproduced in full by the Madras High Court in Srirangapattinam Desigan Srinivasan (W.P. No. 1457 of 2024, 6 September 2024), says 'for the transactions entered into upto 31.03.2024'. The word in the order is 'beyond' where the circular says 'upto'; that is an error in the order's summary of the circular and a practitioner must quote the circular, not this paraphrase. The same sentence in the order also refers to 'other provisions of Chapter XVII-BB' where the circular refers to 'Chapter XVII-B or Chapter XVII-BB'. The order does not record the amount of the demand, the section under which tax was deducted, or the dates of the transaction and of the PAN linking, so it cannot be checked against the circular windows on its own facts. The assessment year is given as 2025-26 against an order under section 200A dated 9 June 2024 and an NFAC order dated 3 April 2025. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Bench was inclined to sustain the grounds. The impugned orders were set aside and the Assessing Officer was directed to give the assessee the extended benefit of the CBDT circular dated 23 April 2024 and to pass an order afresh (para 4).
TaxSphere, “Parul Sharma v ITO (TDS), Noida”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/parul-sharma-v-ito-tds-noida-inoperative-pan-circular-6-2024-benefit/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I bought a flat, deducted one per cent under s.194-IA, and CPC has hit me with a demand because the seller's PAN was not linked to Aadhaar. Is there a High Court decision I can put in front of the officer?
CPC has raised a short-deduction demand on me because my payee's PAN was inoperative for want of Aadhaar linking. What exactly does an inoperative PAN do, and is there any Board relief?
Do I still have to run the compliance check and deduct at the higher non-filer rate, and does my client still have to collect TCS on his sales of goods?
I sell cars. When must I collect one per cent under s.206C(1F), and does it now catch anything besides motor vehicles?
