HC quashes non-speaking order passed against two PAN numbers   

Ramkirshna Sishu Tirtha & Anr Vs ITO (Calcutta High Court)

1. This intra-Court appeal by the writ petitioners is directed against the order dated 28th November, 2022 in W.P.A. 19557 of 2022. By the said order, the writ petition stood disposed of by directing the appellants to file a representation before the assessing officer and explaining as to why two PAN numbers were obtained by the appellants / assessee. Till the disposal of the representation, the learned Single Bench has directed an order of status quo to be passed pursuant to the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) dated 30^th April, 2022. Aggrieved by such order, the appellants / writ petitioners have filed the present appeal.

2. We have heard Sanjay Bhowmik, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and Mr. Om Narayan Rai, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents/revenue.

3. Though we fully agree with the substantial part of the direction issued by the learned Judge directing the appellants to go before the assessing officer and make a representation, the assessing officer will be precluded from considering the representation since already he has passed an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated 13^th April, 2022. Therefore, unless and until such order is set aside and the assessing officer is empowered to consider the matter afresh, the direction issued in the writ petition cannot be implemented.

4. We have perused the order dated 13^th April, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and we find that the order to be a non-speaking order. The appellants had submitted a reply dated 28^th March, 2022 to the notice issued under Section 148A (b) of the Act. In the said reply, the assessee has pointed out as to how and under what circumstances two PAN numbers were applied and the fact that one of the PAN numbers was surrendered, was also set out. The assessing officer should examine the correctness of the stand taken by the appellants, which according to the appellants, was an inadvertent mistake. As we are satisfied that the order dated 13^th April, 2022 is a non-speaking order, we are inclined to interfere with the same and remand the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration and preserving the direction issued by the learned Single Bench directing the appellants to submit a representation.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.