Case LawHigh Court › Ita/14/2007 Of Comnr.of Incometax v. Pat...

Ita/14/2007 Of Comnr.of Incometax v. Patra Exports P.ltd

High Court 07 Mar 2022 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisnc
Parties
Ita/14/2007 Of Comnr.of Incometax v. Patra Exports P.ltd
Date of order
07 Mar 2022
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/14/2007 Of Comnr.of Incometax v. Patra Exports P.ltd, the High Court (2022) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: The question sought to be urged is whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the notice issued to the Assessee under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) is invalid.

Decision: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK ITA No.14 of 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax, …. Appellant Bhubaneswar Mr. T. K. Satpathy, Senior Standing Counsel -versus- …. Respondent Mr. Adhiraj Mohanty, Advocate Patra Exports (P) Ltd., Puri CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY Order No. 06. ORDER07.03.2022 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against an order dated 4[th]September, 2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) in IT (SS) A No.15/CTK/2005 and CO No.49/CTK/2005 for the Block Period 1990-91 to 2000-01. 2. This appeal is yet to be admitted. The question sought to be urged is whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the notice issued to the Assessee under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) is invalid. 3. A perusal of para 12 of the impugned order reveals that the said question was answered against the Revenue by following the ITAT’s earlier order in the group case in IT (SS) A Nos.16, 17, 23, 24, 30, 79, 80, 81 etc., which had already been decided against the Revenue. In other words, the ITAT was merely being consistent with the decision already taken by it in several other connected M. Panda appeals involving the same question and in relation to entity that is part of the same group. 4. Following the rule of consistency, the Court is not therefore inclined to frame the question as urged. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Judge Chief Justice (B. P. Routray)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan