ORIENT EXPORTS PVT LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
What did the High Court hold?
The Hon'ble High Court, without delving into the merits of the reassessment proceedings or the validity of the PAN number used, set aside the impugned assessment order dated March 29, 2022. The Court found that the order was unsustainable due to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The reasoning was that the petitioner's grievances and representations were neither considered nor rejected by the assessing officer before passing the final order. The Court directed the assessing officer to proceed with the reassessment proceedings in accordance with law. This involves considering and disposing of the petitioner's representation dated March 24, 2022, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, and providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The further proceedings will depend on the outcome of the assessing officer's decision on the representation. The assessing officer is to serve notice of hearing manually. The petitioner is to communicate the order to the assessing officer. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Orient Exports Pvt Ltd, challenged an assessment order dated March 29, 2022, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2015-16. The challenge was based on the ground that the reassessment proceedings were conducted under a wrong PAN number (AAAC03377K) which the petitioner had surrendered on September 12, 2011. The petitioner had also made representations to the assessing officer on March 4, 2022, and March 24, 2022, objecting to the continuation of the proceedings under the surrendered PAN. However, the assessing officer allegedly ignored these representations and proceeded to pass the final assessment order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated March 29, 2022, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2015-16, is bad in law due to being passed under a surrendered PAN number. 2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by the assessing officer's failure to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representations dated March 4, 2022, and March 24, 2022, before passing the final assessment order. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was bad in law because the entire reassessment proceeding was conducted under a wrong, surrendered PAN number. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the assessing officer ignored their representations objecting to the proceedings, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents (Union of India and Ors.).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OD – 2 ORDER SHEET WPO/2075/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE ORIENT EXPORTS PVT LTD VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 18th May, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv. Mr. Debdatta Saha, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Adv. …For the respondents The Court : Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. Affidavit of service filed in Court be kept with the record. In this matter, petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment order dated 29th March, 2022, under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to assessment year 2015-16, on the ground that the impugned assessment order is bad in law since the whole proceeding was under a wrong PAN number being AAAC03377K which has already been surrendered long back by the petitioner on 12th September, 2011 as appears at page 39 of the writ petition. In addition, petitioner’s further ground to challenge the impugned order is that during the impugned reassessment proceeding which has been culminated into the final assessment order, petitioner has made several representations being letters dated 4th March, 2022 at page 69 of the writ petition and thereafter 24th March, 2022 at page 77 of the writ petition before the
2 assessing officer concerned objecting to the continuance of the impugned assessment proceeding by bringing it to the knowledge of the assessing officer that the same was being wrongly continued under a surrendered PAN number but the assessing officer ignoring the aforesaid representations and proceeded with the impugned proceeding and passed the final impugned assessment order. Without going into the validity and legality of the impugned reassessment proceeding, the basic question arises that even if the assessing officer was proceeding under a wrong PAN number, what prevented him from considering and disposing the aforesaid representations of the petitioner by passing an order by which even he could have rejected it if he had material before him. Considering the submissions of the parties and the fact as appears from record and the discussion made above, I am of the view that the impugned assessment order dated 29th March, 2022 even without going into the merit is not sustainable for the reason of violation of principles of natural justice since the petitioner’s grievance and representations were neither considered nor rejected before passing the final impugned assessment order and accordingly the same is set aside with liberty to the assessing officer concerned to proceed with the impugned reassessment proceeding in accordance with law after considering and disposing the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 24th March, 2022 by passing a reasoned and speaking order and after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorised representative within four weeks from date and further proceeding will depend upon the final outcome of the decision
3 to be passed by the assessing officer on the aforesaid representation dated 24th March, 2022 being annexure P-10 at page 77 to the writ petition. The assessing officer shall serve the notice of hearing of the aforesaid representation manually. The petitioner shall communicate this order to the assessing officer concerned. With these observations and directions, this writ petition being WPO 2075 of 2022 stands disposed of. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) TR/
More judgments on Section 147
- Bha Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New DelhiITA 5208/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2026AY 2015-16
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sampat Raj Jain vs. The State Of Assam And 3 Ors.Gauhati · 3 Nov 2026
- Sri Hardik Gowda vs. Sri Jayaram PKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026
- Shiv Ram vs. State Of Hp And OrsHimachal Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Ampl Resources PVT. LTD., Through Sri Om Prakash Pareek, Authorised Signatory vs. The State Of JharkhandJharkhand · 3 Nov 2026
- Saleem vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 3 Nov 2026