Case LawHigh Court › Mr. J. Pattanaik, Advocate v. The Princi...

Mr. J. Pattanaik, Advocate v. The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Odisha, Bhubaneswar And Others

High Court 16 Aug 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisnc
Parties
Mr. J. Pattanaik, Advocate v. The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Odisha, Bhubaneswar And Others
Date of order
16 Aug 2023
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Mr. J. Pattanaik, Advocate v. The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Odisha, Bhubaneswar And Others, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.

Decision: 5.The writ petition is disposed of.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11418 of 2023 (Through Hybrid mode) …. Malaya Bishoi Petitioner Mr. J. Pattanaik, Advocate -versus- …. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Odisha, Bhubaneswar and others Opposite Parties Mr. S. S. Mohapatra, Advocate (Senior Standing Counsel, Revenue) CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA ORDER 16.08.2023 1.Mr. Pattanaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner (assessee). He submits, there is typographical error in the prayer. Under challenge is annexure-6 being communication dated 23[rd] February, 2023 made by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), to his client. It will appear from the communication that his client’s petition for stay of the demand pertaining to assessment year, 2016-17 was disposed of by directing condition of 20 % deposit. This was done without opportunity of hearing to his client. 2.He relies on order dated 4[th] April, 2023 of co-ordinate Bench in WP(C) no.10050 of 2023(Harekrushna Patra vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur and others). By said order the Bench had directed remand in similar facts. 3.Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue. He submits, appropriate order be made. 4.We set aside and quash impugned communication dated 23[rd]February, 2023. Opposite party no.2 is directed to give petitioner an opportunity of demonstrating why there should be lesser amount of deposit as condition for stay. This direction is in view of clarification made by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income tax and ors. Vs. LG Electronics India (P) Limited on order dated 20[th] July, 2018 in Civil Appeal no.6850 of 2018. 5.The writ petition is disposed of. ( Arindam Sinha ) Judge ( S. K. Mishra ) Judge Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOOReason: AuthenticationLocation: OHCDate: 16-Aug-2023 18:11:31
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