Allowed

Kartika Chandra Khuntia and Sons, Cuttack v. Principal Commnr. of It, Bbsr

Orissa HC6 Jul 2022WP(C)/15711/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an assessment order passed under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act because the assessee was given only one day to respond to a notice served alongside the draft order. The matter was remanded for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order dated 10th September, 2021 set aside and case remanded to NFA C, Delhi for fresh hearing.

Kartika Chandra Khuntia and Sons, Cuttack Vs Principal Commnr. of… — Income Tax | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.15711 of 2022

¶3

Kartika Chandra Khuntia & Sons …. Petitioner Mr. R.P. Kar, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. Principal Commissioner of Opp. Parties Income Tax, Bhubaneswar-1 and others

¶6

Mr. Mr. T.K. Satapathy, Sr. Standing Counsel

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶9

JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

ORDER

Order No.

06.07.2022

The impugned assessment order is dated 10^th September, 2021. It is further seen preceding such order that two notices dated 3^rd February and 23^rd February 2021 were issued to the Assessee under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act). In paragraph 4 of the impugned order it is stated that since the Assessee was ‘non responsive’, notices were delivered physically by the verification unit on 9^th September, 2021 and were acknowledged to have been received by one Mr. Budhadev Khuntia, one of the partners of the Assessee partnership firm.

¶15

Even assuming all of the above facts to be correct, with the show cause notice with the draft assessment order, dated 5^th September, 2021 being served only on 9^th September, 2021, passing of the impugned assessment on 10^th September, 2021 which was the very next date shows that only one day’s time was

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

given to the Assessee to respond to the notice. This was obviously inadequate by any standards.

¶18

On that short ground, the Court sets aside the impugned assessment order and remands the matter to the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for a fresh hearing for which purpose the matter will be taken up there on 22^nd August, 2022. It will be open to the Petitioner to make a request for physical hearing in accordance with law. The fresh assessment order after hearing the Petitioner will be passed within a period of two months

¶19

thereafter.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge

¶21

KC Bisoi

¶22

Page 2 of 2

Kartika Chandra Khuntia and Sons, Cuttack v. Principal Commnr. of It, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartika Chandra Khuntia and Sons, Cuttack v. Principal Commnr. of It, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rasananda Biswal @ Prasananda Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Seshadev Sahoo Vs Member,Board of Rev

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Vs M/S. E City Projects Luckinow (P) Ltd.

State Vs M/S.Lakshman Nayak

Pratap Ch.Jena Vs P.O,Labour Court

Tushar Mahapatra Vs State and Ors.