Aditya Kandoi Vs Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bbsr

1. Challenging the order dated 24^th June, 2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the I.T. Act”) pertaining to assessment year 2019-20 (Annexure-3) and notice dated 30^th June, 2025 issued under Section 148 of said Act by the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack (Annexure-4), the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer inter alia:

¶15

“ AND/OR alternatively, be pleased to direct the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuttack (Opp. Party No.4) to proceed further after supplying documents sought by application in application dated 11.03.2025 [Aannx.2]” .

¶16

2. Mr. Jagamohan Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that responding to the notice issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, the authority was approached by way of an application dated 11^th March, 2025 seeking for supply of information and documents which gave rise to suggest that income chargeable to

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

tax has escaped assessment. The Authority concerned instead of supplying such document(s) as sought for, proceeded to pass an order under Section 148A(3) and issued notice under Section 148 to proceed with escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the I.T. Act. He went on to argue that the petitioner has not been afforded due opportunity to submit his explanation in response to notice issued under Section 148A of the I.T. Act. He vehemently contended that the order passed under Section 148A(3) of the I.T. Act suffers from flagrant violation of principles of natural justice; thereby the proceeding under Section 147, being vitiated, the notice under Section 148 is liable to be quashed.

¶19

3. On 19^th August, 2025, this Court having recorded the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, passed the following order:-

¶20

“ 3. According to the petitioner, after receiving a notice under Section 148A(1) of the IT Act, the reply was given with the specific prayer for supply of certain documents, which led the Assessing Officer to form an opinion that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year. The copy of the reply is annexed to the writ petition which corroborates the stand of the petitioner that certain documents which has a material bearing in the said proceedings, were asked for. Undeniably, the said documents, as asked for, were not supplied to the petitioner. However, the Authority proceeded on the basis of the materials on record as well as the reply given by the petitioner and passed the order for initiation of a proceeding under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

5. In view of the aforesaid stand taken before us, we grant time to the Department to collate and collect the documents as requisitioned by the petitioner-assessee. Simultaneously, we find that if a proceeding under Section 148 of the IT Act is allowed to be proceeded with and reach the final destination, it would cause a greater injustice to the petitioner-assessee and, therefore, we restrain the Assessing Officer from proceeding further or taking further decision on the basis of notice dated 30^th June, 2025 issued under Section 148 of IT Act till the next date of listing of the instant matter .”

¶23

4. On the subsequent date of hearing, Mr. Subash Chandra Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department, having undertaken to supply necessary documents, vide order dated 9^th October, 2025, submitted today in course of hearing that he has already been handed over such documents to the learned counsel for the petitioner, such fact has been conceded by Mr. Jagamohan Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶24

5. Heard Mr. Jagamohan Pattanaik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Subash Chandra Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department.

¶25

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and taking note of aforesaid conceded fact, this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 24^th June, 2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the I.T. Act. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may file his response in connection with the show-cause notice issued under Section 148A of the I.T. Act within a period of seven working days hence before the authority concerned, who shall consider such explanation / reply within a period of seven working days thereafter

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

and pass order thereon. The Assessing Officer, after communication of such order under Section 148A, may proceed with notice dated 30^th June, 2025 issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act in accordance with law. Needless to say that the interim order passed in the writ petition stands vacated.

¶28

7 . In view of the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶29

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

¶30

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶31

MRS/Laxmikant

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Oct-2025 10:44:21

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Aditya Kandoi v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Kandoi v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gangadhar Kaushalya Vs State of Odisha

Kelucharan Martha Vs the Commissioner Ct and Gst, Cuttack

M/S. D.K. Engineering and Construction, Balangir Vs Chief Commissioner of Ct and Gst, Cuttack

Akhila Sahani Vs the Director General of Police, Cuttack

Sadananda Behera Vs the State of Odisha

Jasmin Dalai Vs State of Odisha