An instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, as ITBA-PAN Instruction No. 9, dated 25 March 2021.
An instruction from the Directorate of Systems to the field on what to do when the same permanent account number has been allotted to two or more persons. It modifies the rule laid down in AIS Instruction No. 82 of 2013, which went simply by who was allotted the number first, and substitutes a four-case scheme that looks instead at which of the holders has actually been filing returns on the number.
This is an instruction to the department's own officers. It tells them how to do something — which cases to take up, what to check, how to record it. It is an internal direction, and its whole force runs downwards inside the department.
The earlier position was that the person allotted the PAN earlier in time is its actual owner and retains it, the later allottee surrendering the wrongly allotted number and obtaining a new one. Four cases are now prescribed. Where the first allottee has not been filing returns on the PAN and the second has, the first allottee is allotted a new PAN and the second continues to retain the original. Where neither has filed, the existing procedure holds — the first allottee retains the number and the second is given a new one. Where both have filed returns for part of the years, and in any other case, the matter is to be resolved after gathering information on the demands and refunds pending on the returns filed, with the approval of the ADG (Systems)-I. Field officers and the regional computer centres are to analyse the PAN details and the audit logs before applying the scheme.
Duplicate allotment is a data problem with a tax consequence. Once two people file on one number, their returns, credits, demands and refunds sit on a single record, and moving the number to whichever of them applied first can strip a genuine filer of his own history. The Board's chronological rule was easy to apply but produced exactly that result. This instruction reorders the priorities so that the filing history on the number, rather than the date of allotment, decides who keeps it.
This is housekeeping addressed to the department's own officers and its systems directorate, and it binds them. A taxpayer cannot demand a particular outcome under it, and it cannot override section 139A or the rules made on PAN. It does not bind the Tribunal or a court either, though a taxpayer whose case falls within it may hold the department to what it says.
Dated 25.03.2021 and effective from issue, applying to duplicate PAN cases taken up thereafter. No completion date is prescribed.
Cases 3 and 4 are not self-executing — they need the ADG (Systems)-I's approval and an examination of pending demands and refunds, so expect delay. Before any change is made, check what rides on the number: TDS credits, advance tax, refunds and any outstanding demand. Ask for the audit log analysis, because the outcome turns on the filing record the department reads off it.
First PAN holder will be allotted a new PAN as per existing procedure and second PAN holder will continue to retain the original PAN
— the Central Board of Direct Taxes, instruction ITBA-PAN Instruction No. 9, 25 March 2021. Read it in the department’s own PDF.
| Under the Income-tax Act, 1961 | Now, in the Income-tax Act, 2025 |
|---|---|
| section 139A | section 2, section 262 |
Is the Aadhaar-PAN requirement in s.139AA valid, and can my existing PAN be cancelled under it?
My income is below the taxable limit and I filed Form 15G, but the finance company says it cannot act on it without a PAN. Can section 206AA be applied to me?
What here is the Board’s and what is ours. The document is the Central Board of Direct Taxes’ own. Its number, its date and the words quoted above are reproduced from the Board’s own PDF, which is here. Everything else on this page is ours: the plain-English account of what the document is and what it does, the reading of which provision it turns on, the note on what to watch, and the choice of cases. Where our account and the document part, the document governs.
An order of the Board binds the department, not you and not a court. The Board writes to its own officers. An assessee may hold the department to an order or an instruction that helps him; the department cannot hold an assessee to one that hurts him, and the Tribunal and the courts decide the law for themselves. This is the most common mistake made with this material, and it is worth making twice: a direction of the Board is not a section of the Act.
What we could not settle. The instruction cites no section of the Act; section 139A is given in sections as the provision PAN allotment rests on. The running number after 'F. No. ADG(SI-1)PAN/2020-21/' was not legible.