Petitioners Mr. A.s. Nandy, Advocate_ v. Commissioner, Income Tax, Bhubaneswar & Anr._
High Court
09 Aug 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · cisnc
Parties
Petitioners Mr. A.s. Nandy, Advocate_ v. Commissioner, Income Tax, Bhubaneswar & Anr._
Date of order
09 Aug 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Petitioners Mr. A.s. Nandy, Advocate_ v. Commissioner, Income Tax, Bhubaneswar & Anr._, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.
Decision: With the above observation, the writ petition stands 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No. 18895 of 2015
Rasananda Sahoo …..
PetitionersMr. A.S. Nandy, Advocate
Vs.…..
Commissioner, Income Tax, Bhubaneswar & Anr.
Opposite PartiesMr. A. Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel, Income Tax
CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER09.08.2023
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Order No.
5
2. Heard Mr. A.S. Nandy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for Income Tax Department.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to refund T.D.S. amount of Rs.34,248/- with interest after performing due formalities.
4. Mr. A.S. Nandy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner has already made grievance before the authority under Annexure-2, the same should be considered and disposed of in accordance with law.
5. Mr. A. Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for Income Tax Department contended that there is proper procedure in the Income Tax Department for refund of T.D.S. amount. Instead of filing proper application, the
petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition seeking direction to dispose of the representation.
6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, since the petitioner has made a representation, instead of filing proper application, for refund of T.D.S. amount, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction to the authority for disposal of his representation. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to pursue his remedy before the appropriate authority by filing proper application in accordance with law.
7. With the above observation, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
Alok
(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedSigned by: ALOK RANJAN SETHYDesignation: SecretaryReason: AuthenticationLocation: Orissa High courtDate: 09-Aug-2023 17:27:37
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.