Mr. Bijay Panda, Advocate v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21600 of 2025 Rajendra Dandapat …. Petitioner Mr. Bijay Panda, Advocate -versus- The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar and others ….Opposite Parties Mr. Avinash Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel (for Income Tax Department) CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMANORDER 08.09.2025 Order No. 1. Challenging the assessment order dated 27[th] January, 2025 01. framed by Assessment Unit (National Faceless Assessment Centre) Income Tax Department under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition invoking provisions under Articles 227 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 2.Mr. Bijay Panda, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that statutory notices claimed to have been issued by the Department under Sections 142 and 144 on 08.05.2024, 20.08.2024, 24.08.2024, 18.09.2024, 29.09.2024, 18.10.2024, 19.12.2024 and 23.12.2024 via e-mail have never been served on the petitioner for the reason that the Department has sent those mail to unknown address, viz., . He submitted that the correct e-mail address which should have been used by the Department is . Since the notices were never served on the petitioner, it is argued by Mr. Bijay Panda, learned Advocate that the assessment framed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144 B of the Income Tax Act is outcome of flagrant violation of natural justice. He further submitted that the authority concerned ought to have taken steps to serve statutory notice by postal mode instead of electronic mode. Therefore, he submitted that principles of natural justice being violated, the assessment order is liable to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the assessing officer for fresh assessment affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Mr. Avinash Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department opposing the contention of Mr. Bijay Panda, learned Advocate submitted that prior to initiation of the proceeding for assessment under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144 B of the I.T. Act, many opportunities were afforded to the assesse which is reflected at paragraph-2, page-2 of the assessment order. The said order depicts that notices were sent not only viae-mail Id. but also by speed post bearing No.JA781327733IN, but there was no response from the petitioner; as a consequence of which assessing officer proceeded to conclude the assessment by passing appropriate order. He, therefore, contended that the factual disputes as set up by the petitioner in the present writ petition as to whether the notices were sent to proper e- mail address and by speed post to correct address can be addressed to by the appellate authority vested with power under the provisions of Income Tax Act. Therefore, he submitted that the writ petition does not deserve to be entertained. 4. Heard Mr. Bijay Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Avinash Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department. 5. Perused the record. 6. As it revealed from the assessment order that as many as nine opportunities were given by the assessing officer by issuing notices and on each count there was non-response. However, it is seen that one of the notices were communicated by speed post, yet there was no response. It appears there is factual disputes with respect to whether the correct e-mail address was used. Whether “”“ or rajendradandpat123@gmail”.com is correct and/or whether the notice issued by speed post was delivered at the address of the petitioner-addressee are disputed questions of fact which is required to be demonstrated before the fact-finding authority. 5. Perused the record. 6. As it revealed from the assessment order that as many as nine opportunities were given by the assessing officer by issuing notices and on each count there was non-response. However, it is seen that one of the notices were communicated by speed post, yet there was no response. It appears there is factual disputes with respect to whether the correct e-mail address was used. Whether “”“ or rajendradandpat123@gmail”.com is correct and/or whether the notice issued by speed post was delivered at the address of the petitioner-addressee are disputed questions of fact which is required to be demonstrated before the fact-finding authority. 7. As candidly submitted by Mr. Avinash Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department that there exists alternative remedy to challenge the assessment order and the petitioner-assessee shall have scope to place material before the appellate authority with respect to non-service of notices to justify his contention that there was violation of principles of natural justice. This Court, hence, does not deem it a fit case for entertainment of writ petition. 8. Hence, the writ petition, sans merit, stands dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, is also dismissed. 9. The petitioner may approach the appropriate authority for ventilating its remedy as available under the statute, if so advised. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Bichi Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOODesignation: SecretaryReason: AuthenticationLocation: Orissa High CourtDate: 12-Sep-2025 16:54:19