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
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.