Mr. Sidhartha Ray, Senior Advocateassisted By Mr. K.k. Sahoo, Advocate v. ….Opposite Parties

Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 6063 of 2023 …. Petitioner M/s. Kalinga Mining Corporation Private Limited Mr. Sidhartha Ray, Senior AdvocateAssisted by Mr. K.K. Sahoo, Advocate -versus- ….Opposite Parties Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and another Mr. Tushar Kanti Satapathy, Senior Standing CounselAlong with Mr. Avinash Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN ORDER 28.02.2023 1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to an intimation dated 9[th] February, 2023 sent to the Petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Circle-1, Cuttack in relation to the re-assessment order under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) dated 31[st] March, 2016 for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2008-09 to 2014-15. 2. The background facts are that against the aforementioned re-assessment order, the Petitioner-Assessee filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)] which came to be allowed by the CIT (A) by the order dated 30[th] August, 2019. During the pendency of the above appeals before the CIT (A), the Petitioner-Assessee had approached this Court with W.P.(C) Nos.5108, 4694 and 4181 of 2017 which were disposed of by a common order dated 27[th] April, 2017 lifting the attachment of the Petitioner’s accounts conditional upon a fixed deposit in the sum of around Rs.30 crores approximately of the Petitioner with the Andhra Bank continued to remain attached “without being remitted to the Department without leave of the Court”. That interim order admittedly continued during the pendency of the appeal before the CIT (A). 3. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (A) allowing the Petitioner’s appeal, the Department went in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in ITA Nos.389-392 and 465-467/CTK/2019. 4. The said appeals were disposed of by the ITAT by an order dated 23[rd] June, 2022 remitting the appeals to the file of the CIT (A) on the short ground that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not been heard by the CIT (A) before allowing the appeals of the Assessee. 5. The position, therefore, is that the appeals before the CIT (A) stand revived. These were the appeals of the Assessee and, therefore, when the appeals revived, the order passed by this Court on 27[th] April, 2017 in W.P.(C) Nos.5108, 4694 and 4181 of 2017also revived. 6. Unmindful of the above fact of revival of the order dated 27[th]April, 2017 the impugned intimation has been sent on 9[th] February, 2023 by the DCIT requiring the Petitioner to pay the ‘balance’ demanded amount by invoking Section 245 of the Act. 7. Having heard Mr. Sidhartha Ray, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Tushar Kanti Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department, the Court is of the view that the impugned intimation was misconceived essentially S. Behera for the reason that with the revival of the Assessee’s appeals before the CIT(A), the order passed by this Court on 27[th] April, 2017 in W.P.(C) Nos.5108, 4694 and 4181 of 2017 also stood revived automatically and there was no occasion therefore for the Assessee to be asked to pay any ‘balance’ demanded amount. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, the intimation dated 9[th]February, 2023 is hereby quashed. It is clarified that during the pendency of the appeals before the CIT (A), the common order passed by this Court on 27[th] April, 2017 in W.P.(C) Nos.5108, 4694 and 4181 of 2017 will subsist. 9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. 10. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) (M.S. Raman) Chief Justice Judge