Mr. C. Parida, Advocate v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8865 of 2024 ….. Utkal Trading Company Private Limited, Sundargarh Petitioner Mr. C. Parida, Advocate Vs. ….. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur and another Opposite Parties Mr. S.C. Mohanty, Sr. SC for Revenue CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER 15.04.2024 Order No. 01. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. C. Parida, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 23.03.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 under Annexure-1 and the subsequent notice dated 23.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act under Annexure-2 by Opposite Party No.2. 4. Mr. C. Parida, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that while passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the authority has not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, subsequent notice issued under Annexure-2 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further contended that the petitioner should have given opportunity of hearing before any action taken by the authority. 5. Mr. S.C. Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue contended that if the petitioner has not given opportunity of hearing, the order passed by the authority should be set aside and remanded the matter to the very same authority to rehear the matter by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case, since Mr. S.C. Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue made a fair submission that opportunity of hearing has not been given to the petitioner, the order dated 23.03.2024 passed by the authority under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the issuance of consequential notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act under Annexure-2 also cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Thereby, the same are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. This Court remits the matter to the very same authority to hear afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 7. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: SUBHASMITA DASDesignation: Sr. StenographerReason: AuthenticationLocation: High Court of OrissaDate: 16-Apr-2024 20:02:26 (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE