Mr. B. Panda, Advocate v. The Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar And Others
High Court
24 Jun 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisnc
Parties
Mr. B. Panda, Advocate v. The Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar And Others
Date of order
24 Jun 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mr. B. Panda, Advocate v. The Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar And Others, the High Court (2024) decided the matter.
Decision: The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14722 of 2024
…..
Abdul Quayoum
Petitioner
Mr. B. Panda, Advocate
Vs.
…..
The Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar and others
Opposite Parties
Mr. S.C. Mohanty, Sr. SC along with Mr. A. Kedia, Jr. SC for Revenue Mr. A. Kedia, Jr. SC for Revenue
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER 24.06.2024
Order No.
01.
This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 19.02.2023 of the Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar (Opposite Party No.1) under Sections 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 along with interest and penalty for the tax period 2018-19. 19.02.2023 of the Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar (Opposite Party No.1) under Sections 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 along with interest and penalty for the tax period 2018-19.
3. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that it was passed ex parte. In fact, the petitioner was unable to appear and did not even file a reply to the show cause notice (SCN) issued to him preceding the above assessment order. parte. In fact, the petitioner was unable to appear and did not even file a reply to the show cause notice (SCN) issued to him preceding the above assessment order.
4. In the petition, the petitioner has explained how he was not served with any notice for which he was not able to file reply to the show cause notice. served with any notice for which he was not able to file reply to the show cause notice.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner ought to be given one more chance to first reply to the SCN and then appear before the assessing authority for a fresh assessment order to be passed in accordance with law. the view that the petitioner ought to be given one more chance to first reply to the SCN and then appear before the assessing authority for a fresh assessment order to be passed in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned assessment order dated 19.02.2023 of Opposite Party No.1, this Court directs as under:-
(i) The petitioner will first file a reply to the SCN on or before 15.07.2024.
(ii) The matter will thereafter be taken up by opposite party on 18.07.2024, and after hearing the petitioner, a fresh assessment order shall be passed within a period of two months thereafter. If aggrieved by such order, it will be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Subhasmita
(G. SATAPATHY)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedSigned by: SUBHASMITA DASDesignation: Sr. StenographerReason: AuthenticationLocation: High Court of OrissaDate: 27-Jun-2024 17:34:11
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.