M/S RN FASHION vs. Union of India AND ORS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the order dated 13th April, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was a non-speaking order. The Court found that the assessee had submitted a reply on 28th March, 2022, explaining the circumstances under which two PAN numbers were obtained and that one had been surrendered. The assessing officer was expected to examine the correctness of this stand. Since the order under Section 148A(d) was found to be non-speaking and did not reflect consideration of the assessee's explanation, the High Court interfered with it. The order dated 13th April, 2022, was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration. The appellants were directed to submit a representation, and the assessing officer was to afford an opportunity of personal hearing, consider the earlier reply and the representation, and pass a fresh order on merits. The consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was also set aside.
What were the facts?
The appellants, Shree Ramkirshna Sishu Tirtha & Anr., are aggrieved by an order dated 28th November, 2022, passed by a learned Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court. The writ petition was disposed of by directing the appellants to file a representation before the assessing officer explaining why two PAN numbers were obtained. Pending this representation, a status quo was ordered regarding the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30th April, 2022. The appellants contend that the order under Section 148A(d) was a non-speaking order, and they had already submitted a reply on 28th March, 2022, explaining the circumstances of obtaining two PAN numbers and surrendering one. The revenue is represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(1), Hooghly.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the order passed by the assessing officer under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 13th April, 2022, is a speaking order, considering the reply submitted by the assessee on 28th March, 2022, explaining the circumstances of obtaining two PAN numbers and surrendering one. Assessee's Contentions: - The order dated 13th April, 2022, passed under Section 148A(d) is a non-speaking order. - The assessee had submitted a reply on 28th March, 2022, to the notice under Section 148A(b), explaining the inadvertent mistake of obtaining two PAN numbers and surrendering one. - The assessing officer should have considered this reply before passing the order under Section 148A(d). Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions for the revenue regarding the nature of the order or the assessee's explanation.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Item No.3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE HEARD ON: 22.12.2022 DELIVERED ON:22.12.2022 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA M.A.T No.1943 of 2022 with I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2022
Shree Ramkirshna Sishu Tirtha & Anr. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(1), Hooghly & Ors. Appearance:- Mr. Sanjay Bhowmik, Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Mr. Subrata Mukherjee … for the appellants. Mr. Om Narayan Rai …. for the respondents. JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) 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 30th 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 13th 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. 2
We have perused the order dated 13th 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 28th 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 13th 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. 5. In the result, the appeal along with the connected application are disposed of by setting aside the order dated 13th April, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the matter stands remanded and restored to the file of the assessing officer. The appellants are directed to submit a representation as directed by the learned Single Bench and the assessing 3
officer on receipt of the representation shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing and consider the reply dated 28th March, 2022 as well as the representation and pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. 6. Needless to state that the consequential notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is also set aside. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J) I agree,
(HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
NAREN/PALLAB(AR.C) 4
More judgments on Section 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shri. Adbul Rahim vs. The State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 13 Nov 2026
- Sandhyarani Das vs. The Superintendent Of CGST And Central ExciseOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- M/S.Pitabas Jena,Pokharigaon, Cuttack vs. Supernitendent, Cuttack-Iii, Range, CuttackOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- Sudarshan Behera vs. Superintendent Angul Circle, AngulOrissa · 11 Nov 2026
- Gayatri Priyadarshini Bisoi vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Cuttack-Ii,Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 11 Nov 2026