Case LawHigh Court › Mr. Sidhartha Ray, Advocate v. Principal...

Mr. Sidhartha Ray, Advocate v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur, Ayyakar Bhawan, Ainthapali And Another

High Court 30 Oct 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisnc
Parties
Mr. Sidhartha Ray, Advocate v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur, Ayyakar Bhawan, Ainthapali And Another
Date of order
30 Oct 2021
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Mr. Sidhartha Ray, Advocate v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur, Ayyakar Bhawan, Ainthapali And Another, the High Court (2021) 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

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.33558 of 2021 …. M/s. Ganesh Ores Private Limited Petitioner Mr. Sidhartha Ray, Advocate -versus- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Sambalpur, Ayyakar Bhawan, Ainthapali and another ….Opp. Parties Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Sr. Standing Counsel (Income Tax) CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY ORDER30.10.2021 Order No. 01. 1. It is seen that the impugned assessment order dated 30[th]September, 2021 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 263 thereof was preceded by a show cause notice (SCN) dated 25[th]September, 2021, i.e. five days earlier. The date of hearing was fixed to 27[th] September, 2021 which is just two days after the SCN. 2. It appears that there was no time for the Assessee to even properly respond to the SCN and the request of the Assessee for an adjournment (Annexure-7) also was rejected. One of the main contentions of the Assessee was that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 was well beyond the statutory limitation period of 2 years since it pertains to the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 3. On the ground that there was inadequate time for the Assessee to even prepare for the assessment hearing, the Court considers it appropriate to set aside the impugned assessment order dated 30[th]September, 2021 and remand the matter to the AO for a fresh hearing for which purpose the matter will now be listed before the AO on 22[nd] November, 2021 on which date the Assessee shall remain present either through his authorized representative. The Assessee will be permitted to file a written note of submissions including the grounds that have been urged in the present petition including those noted in this order. The AO, after hearing the Petitioner, will pass a fresh assessment order in accordance with law dealing with all the issues raised by the Petitioner in his written submissions. Needless to state that the Assessee will cooperate with the AO so that he may pass a fresh assessment order as early as possible. 4. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. 5. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice ( B.P. Routray) Judge M.K. Panda
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