Wp(C)/10927/2025 Of Rajesh Gadodia v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Order No. 01. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.10927 of 2025 …. Rajesh Gadodia Petitioner Mr. Sidharth Ray, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kshirod Kumar Sahoo, Advocate -versus- …. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4) and others Opposite Parties Mr. Avinash Kedia, Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department CORAM: THE HON’BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 01.05.2025 This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. The instant writ petition is filed assailing the order of assessment passed in relation to a proceeding under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”). 3. It is a specific stand taken by the petitioner that the precondition of the show-cause to be issued under Section 148 of the Act was an outcome of the violation of not only the statutory provisions contained under Section 148-A of the Act but also the circulars / notifications issued subsequently. In other words, it is sought to be contended that the authorities must afford opportunity of personal hearing in relation to a proceeding under Section 148-A of the Act. In the event, the Assessee conveys such intention, denial of such opportunity would entail the entire course of actions adopted by the authorities liable to be struck down. It is further submitted that the steps under Section 148 of the Act which culminated into an order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer is consequential to the adherence of the provisions under Section 148-A of the Act and in the event the steps or the course of action adopted under Section 148-A of the Act is found to be illegal, all consequential steps shall fall automatically. It is further submitted that the authorities have not taken into consideration the nuance of Section 151-A of the Act and cannot assume the jurisdiction in violation thereof. 4. The reliance appears to have been made upon the judgments where the authorities did not adhere to the mandates of Section 148-A of the Act which were found to be illegal and contrary to the settled proposition of law and the interference was also made to consequential steps / orders passed by the authorities. 5. There appears to be a debatable issue in this regard. Whether the jurisdictional authority in view of Section 151-A of the Act can assume jurisdiction and proceed to decide the same despite the fact that such jurisdiction was usurped after the search assessment. The point, which is urged in the instant writ petition is that upon an assessment order being passed after exhausting the provisions contained under Section 148 of the Act, there is no fetter in maintaining the writ petition before the High Court despite an alternative remedy by way of an appeal having provided in the statute, but the High Court may at times refuse to exercise the discretion on the point so agitated before the statutory appellate authority who is also competent to decide the same. There is no fetter on the part of the statutory appellate authority to decide the jurisdictional issue nor such power is fettered in the sense that it cannot enter into, the decision of the subordinate authority, if it is demonstrated before it that the same is passed not only in violation of the principle of natural justice but also in flagrant violation of the statutory mandates. the subordinate authority, if it is demonstrated before it that the same is passed not only in violation of the principle of natural justice but also in flagrant violation of the statutory mandates. 6. Initially, the point raised on the course of action under Section 148-A of the Act looks attractive, but our attention is subsequently drawn to the fact that immediately upon a decision having taken under the said provision, a notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued and the petitioner participated in the said proceeding on the basis of said notice which resulted into culmination of final order of assessment. Since there is an express provision of an appeal under Section 246-A of the Act, it would not be desirable to interfere as we find that such comprehensive remedy is already provided in the statute. We, thus, do not intend to exercise our discretion so vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this regard and relegate the petitioner to explore the remedy as provided in the statute. 7. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice MRS/Laxmikant (M.S. Raman) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRADesignation: Senior StenographerReason: AuthenticationLocation: High Court of Orissa, CuttackDate: 02-May-2025 19:09:20