2022 (12) TMI 1459 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment - Validity of order passed u/s 148A - why two PAN numbers were obtained by the appellants / assessee? - HELD THAT - Order passed u/s 148A(d) is a non-speaking order. Appellants had submitted a reply to the notice issued u/s 148A (b) wherein 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. AO 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 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. Appeal along with the connected application are disposed of by setting aside the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act and the matter stands remanded and restored to the file of the assessing officer.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against the order directing appellants to file a representation before the assessing officer regarding two PAN numbers.
2. Validity of the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Determination of whether the order dated 13th April, 2022 was a non-speaking order.
4. Decision on setting aside the order dated 13th April, 2022 and remanding the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order directing the appellants to submit a representation before the assessing officer explaining the issuance of two PAN numbers. The Court acknowledged the direction but noted that the assessing officer had already passed an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. The Court held that the representation cannot be considered unless the previous order is set aside, preventing the implementation of the direction issued in the writ petition.

2. The Court reviewed the order dated 13th April, 2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act and found it to be a non-speaking order. The appellants had previously submitted a reply explaining the circumstances of having two PAN numbers, stating it was an inadvertent mistake. As the Court deemed the order as non-speaking, they interfered with it and remanded the matter back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration, while preserving the direction for the appellants to submit a representation.

3. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 13th April, 2022 and remanded the matter to the assessing officer. The appellants were instructed to provide the representation as directed, and the assessing officer was mandated to conduct a personal hearing, consider the previous reply, representation, and pass a fresh order based on merit and in compliance with the law.

4. Additionally, the consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was also set aside by the Court. No costs were awarded, and the Court directed the prompt issuance of a certified copy of the order upon request by the parties after completing all legal formalities. The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. S. Sivagnanam, with agreement from Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya.