Disposed

Debashis Mohanty v. Principal Commnr. of Income Tax 1, Bbsr

Orissa HC7 Feb 2022WP(C)/33553/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order condones delay in filing a writ challenge against an Income Tax order. The Court quashed letters from the Principal Commissioner regarding bank blocking orders as the Revenue action was premature and required further investigation before legal procedure.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay; letters Annexures 9 and 9-A quashed; prohibitory orders on banks left for necessary post-investigation orders.

Debashis Mohanty Vs Principal Commnr. of Income Tax 1, Bbsr — Income Tax | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P. (C) No. 33553 of 2021

¶3

Debashis Mohanty …. Petitioners Mr. S. Ray, Advocate -versus-

¶4

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

¶5

Mr. T.K. Satapathy, Sr. SC (Income Tax)

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶8

JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

¶9

Order No.

¶10

¶11

I.A. No.1450 of 2022

¶12

ORDER 07.02.2022

¶13

This is an application for condonation of delay.

¶14

For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed and delay in filing the writ petition is condoned.

¶15

W.P. (C) No. 33553 of 2021

¶16

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 30^th October, 2021, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bhubaneswar has passed a reasoned order 24^th January, 2022 in which inter alia it is held in para-7 as under:

¶17

“I have carefully considered the whole matter; it is the apprehension of the TRO that the change of title of ownership of the property in favour of the Petitioner and others is a deliberate design of the certificate debtor to

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

avoid payment of legitimate dues of revenue. However, further enquiry on the matter considering all related facts of the case is necessary to come to such a conclusion. Moreover, he should have obtained approval of designated authority before proceeding to issue prohibitory orders. Since the action of the TRO in issuing prohibitory orders is premature and need further investigation & lawful procedure before such action could be legally resorted to, the RTO is directed to left the prohibitory order placed on the bank & pass necessary order in this behalf.”

¶21

In that view of the matter and the letters as at Annexures9 and 9-A of the writ petition stand quashed. Copies of the order will be sent forthwith by the Registry to the concerned Branch Managers of SBI and Axis Bank Ltd. for necessary action.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶23

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.

¶24

(Dr. S. Muralidhar)

¶25

Chief Justice

¶26

(R.K. Pattanaik)

¶27

Judge

¶28

T.TUDU

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Debashis Mohanty v. Principal Commnr. of Income Tax 1, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debashis Mohanty v. Principal Commnr. of Income Tax 1, 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

Umesh Prasad Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Nabaghana Behera Vs State of Odisha

Fakira Charan Behera Vs Block Education Officer, Keonjhar

Ramakanta Behera Vs State

Bharat Chandra Parida Vs State of Odisha

Sudarsan Swain Vs State of Odisha