High Court of Orissa · Judgments and reasoned final orders
M/s. Sanjay Kumar Bijay Kumar v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Bhubaneswar and Others
W.P.(C) No. 28067 of 2025 ·
Second reopening under section 148A(3)/148 for AY 2019-20 quashed where the partnership firm inadvertently held two PANs and the ITO had already completed reassessment under section 147 on the Inactive PAN accepting that the Rs. 4,42,47,290 Canara Bank transactions were accounted for and taxed under the Active PAN.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner partnership firm (carrying on edible oil and foodgrain wholesale business at Malgodown, Cuttack since 1995) was inadvertently allotted two PANs: PAN-1 (ABAFS4271L), which remained linked to its Canara Bank account, and PAN-2 (AATFS3658P), under which it regularly filed its income-tax returns from AY 2003-04 onwards (reporting total income of Rs. 2,00,820 for AY 2019-20). Earlier, on the basis of cash deposits and transactions of Rs. 4,42,47,290 in Canara Bank under PAN-1, the ITO Ward-1(1), Cuttack reopened AY 2019-20 on PAN-1 and, after verifying the firm's books and returns filed under PAN-2, passed a reassessment order dated 29.03.2023 under section 147/144 accepting that all Canara Bank transactions were already accounted for in PAN-2 and determining income under PAN-1 at 'Nil'. Notwithstanding that concluded assessment, the AO again issued a notice dated 29.03.2025 under section 148A(1) on PAN-1 for the very same Rs. 4,42,47,290 Canara Bank transactions and passed an order dated 24.06.2025 under section 148A(3) followed by a section 148 notice dated 30.06.2025.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
In a 31-page judgment, Justice Murahari Sri Raman held that once the Assessing Officer had already examined the identical banking transactions of Rs. 4,42,47,290 in the earlier reassessment order dated 29.03.2023 and recorded a categorical finding that those transactions were duly reflected in the audited books and return filed under PAN-2 (AATFS3658P), initiating a second reassessment on the same set of facts for the same assessment year was wholly without jurisdiction, barred by the rule against double taxation under Article 265 of the Constitution, and constituted an impermissible review / change of opinion. Relying on State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770 (sublato fundamento cadit opus), the Court held that because the foundational section 148A(3) order was void, all consequential notices under sections 148 and 144B collapsed automatically.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
The High Court quashed the order dated 24.06.2025 passed under section 148A(3) (Annexure-9), the notice dated 30.06.2025 issued under section 148 (Annexure-10), and the intimation dated 25.07.2025 issued under section 144B (Annexure-11) for AY 2019-20.
4. OUTCOME
In favour of the assessee (M/s. Sanjay Kumar Bijay Kumar); section 148A(3) order dated 24.06.2025 and section 148 notice dated 30.06.2025 quashed.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: Where a dual-PAN discrepancy has already been reconciled in a prior section 147 assessment order confirming that bank transactions under the unoperated PAN were duly disclosed and assessed under the active PAN, the Department cannot re-trigger section 148A on the unoperated PAN for the same bank entries.
Source and verification
Reviewed from the complete 31-page official High Court judgment PDF (20260224_ODHC010623822025.pdf, SHA-256: 193ca051153db5cfb17ec4c58d4ae273eadbe418cba78d3c06b800f4ce38f2d1).
Original PDF: 31 pages · SHA-256: 193ca051153db5cfb17ec4c58d4ae273eadbe418cba78d3c06b800f4ce38f2d1
Supplied source-reviewed note retained; original bytes and identity validation checked in this release. Substantive re-review is not claimed for this record.
Refers to the Income-tax Act, 1961 and allied statutory rules/circulars as applicable to the relevant assessment years.
No subsequent Supreme Court reversal or stay is recorded in the source judgment text.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.