On an appeal against the order of the single judge  the Court held that while the direction of the single judge was proper, the Assessing Officer would be precluded from considering the representation since already he had passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act. Therefore, unless and until the order under section 148A(d) was set aside and he was empowered to consider the matter afresh the direction issued in the writ petition could not be implemented. The assessee had submitted a reply to the show-cause notice issued under section 148A(b) in which the assessee had explained how and under what circumstances two permanent account numbers were applied for and the fact that one of the numbers was surrendered. The Assessing Officer should examine the correctness of the assessee’s submission which according to the assessee was an inadvertent mistake. The order passed under section 148A(d) was a non-speaking order and was set aside. The consequential notice issued under section 148 was also set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. According to the direction issued by the court in the writ petition, the assessee was directed to submit a representation. The Assessing Officer on receipt of the representation should afford an opportunity of personal hearing and consider the assessee’s earlier reply and the representation and pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law. Matter remanded.(AY.2015-16)