ALAKANANDA PHILANTHROPIC TRUST, BBSR V. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, ODISHA

WP(C)/7272/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Alakananda Philanthropic Trust, which filed a writ petition against the rectification order issued by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Odisha Region. The order was challenged on the grounds that it was passed without providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, as required under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court examined the procedural compliance of the rectification order and found that the necessary notice to the petitioner was not issued, leading to the quashing of the order and remittance of the case for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747274 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Applicant
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: J PATTANAIK
• Keywords: Income Tax; Opportunity of Hearing; Rectification Order
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. Alakananda Philanthropic Trust, Bhubaneswar The Principal Chief Commissioner Income Tax, Odisha Region, Bhubaneswar THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR Order No. 5 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. petitioner and Mr. appearing for the opposite parties. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the rectification order dated 14.09.2022 passed by opposite party no.4 under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Mr. J. Pattanaik IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.7272 of 2023 Alakananda Philanthropic Trust, ..... Represented By Adv. Mr. -versus- Chief Commissioner of , Odisha Region, ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. Mr. S. C. Mohanty, Sr. S.C., Income Tax CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOURISHANKAR SATAPATHY ORDER 04.04.2024 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Heard Mr. J. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the and Mr. S.C. Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties. The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the rectification order dated 14.09.2022 passed by opposite party no.4 under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, J. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. J. Pattanaik Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. S. C. Mohanty, Sr. S.C., Income Tax Department SATAPATHY , learned counsel appearing for the S.C. Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel The petitioner has filed this writ petition assailing the rectification order dated 14.09.2022 passed by opposite party no.4 under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, , learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has not disputed the rectification order dated 14.09.2022 passed by opposite party no.4 under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is further contended that while passing the said ord not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Though the opposite parties have filed counter affidavit, the same is silent to that effect. Therefore, it is contended that the order authority cannot be sust 5. Mr. S.C. Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties order under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, notice has to be given to the c such, on instructions he has already filed counter affidavit and it has not been mentioned that such notice has been given to the petitioner. 6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going throug opposite parties have filed counter affidavit, paragraph states as follows: “The notice u/s 154 to be issued to the petitioner before passing the order u/s 154 of the Act is not available as per the record.” 7. In view of the above, opposite party no.4, while passing the order dated 14.09.2022 under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequentially, the said order canno sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by opposite party no.4 under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. Thereby, this Court remits the contended that the petitioner has not disputed the rectification order dated 14.09.2022 passed by opposite party no.4 under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is further contended that while passing the said order, opposite party no.4 has not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Though the opposite parties have filed counter affidavit, the same is silent to that effect. Therefore, it is contended that the order so passed by the cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Mr. S.C. Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties contended that before passing the under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, notice has to be given to the concerned party. As such, on instructions he has already filed counter affidavit and it has not been mentioned that such notice has been given to the Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the opposite parties have filed counter affidavit, paragraph states as follows: The notice u/s 154 to be issued to the petitioner before passing the order u/s 154 of the Act is not available as per d.” In view of the above, opposite party no.4, while passing the order dated 14.09.2022 under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequentially, the said order canno sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by opposite party no.4 under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. Thereby, this Court remits the contended that the petitioner has not disputed the rectification order dated 14.09.2022 passed by opposite party no.4 under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is further er, opposite party no.4 has not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Though the opposite parties have filed counter affidavit, the same is silent to so passed by the Mr. S.C. Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel contended that before passing the under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) of the Income oncerned party. As such, on instructions he has already filed counter affidavit and it has not been mentioned that such notice has been given to the Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the h the records, this Court finds that the opposite parties have filed counter affidavit, paragraph-N whereof The notice u/s 154 to be issued to the petitioner before passing the order u/s 154 of the Act is not available as per In view of the above, opposite party no.4, while passing the order dated 14.09.2022 under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has not given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequentially, the said order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the order dated 14.09.2022 passed by opposite party no.4 under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. Thereby, this Court remits the matter to opposite party no.4 to reconsider afresh by following due procedure of law. 8. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Alok tter to opposite party no.4 to reconsider afresh by following due procedure of law. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (G. SATAPATHY JUDGE tter to opposite party no.4 to reconsider afresh by following due With the above observation and direction, this writ petition (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE G. SATAPATHY) Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Designation: A.R-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 06-Apr-2024 18:15:46 Signature Not Verified "