Calcutta HC quashes Non Speaking order, directs Fresh Adjudication [Read Order]

Calcutta - HC - Non - Speaking - order - Adjudication - TAXSCAN

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (HC), quashed non speaking order and directed fresh adjudication.

The writ petition stood disposed of by directing the appellants, Shree Ramkirshna Sishu Tirtha and Anr 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 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. Aggrieved by such order, the appellants / writ petitioners have filed the present appeal.

A Bench consisting of Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya noted that they fully agreed with the substantial part of the direction issued by the 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 Income Tax Act.

The Bench further noted that 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.

However, the Court opposed the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act and held that the order to be a non-speaking order. The Court analysed that 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.

Quashing the order, the Court held that “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 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 Single Bench directing the appellants to submit a representation” the Court said.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

taxscan-loader