M/S. AROGYAM FRESH, CUTTACK V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, CUTTACK

WP(C)/12934/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Arogyam Fresh, a petitioner, challenging the arbitrary actions of the Income Tax Department, represented by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Cuttack, and another party. The petitioner argued that the notice for a hearing was issued at an unreasonable hour and without proper service, leading to an unfair hearing process. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Bhubaneswar, acknowledged the lack of sufficient time provided in the notice and agreed to recall it, proposing to issue a new notice that complies with legal standards. The court's intervention was sought to address these procedural deficiencies and ensure fair treatment under the law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 747174 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: I.T. Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: R P KAR; P K MISHRA
• Keywords: Arbitrariness; Electronic record; Electronic record; Fresh Adjudication; Opportunity of Hearing; Recall Notice; Notice for hearing
• Section: 282(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 12934 of 2024 M/s. Arogyam Fresh, Cuttack ….. Petitioner Mr. R.P. Kar, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Cuttack and another ….. Opposite Parties Mr. S.C. Mohanty, Sr. Standing Counsel, IT CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER 20.05.2024 Order No. 01. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Sr. Advocate appearing along with Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel for IT Department. 3. This is a case, where arbitrariness is writ large as because the notice for hearing was issued on 18.03.2024 at 9.36 P.M. fixing the date of hearing to 19.03.2024 at 3.15 P.M. Similarly nothing has been placed on record to show that such notice was served on the petitioner. 4. Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner brings to the notice of this Court that on receipt of the notice, when the petitioner appeared before the office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Bhubaneswar on 20.03.2024, the petitioner was been told that the hearing has been closed and as such, the authority without understanding the implication of the order stated to have been passed by him did not entertain the petitioner. Page 2 of 3 Therefore, the authority has acted arbitrarily and unreasonably without giving opportunity of hearing. This shows how the power has been exercised by such authority. Therefore, this Court calls upon the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Bhubaneswar to appear before this Court in person today (20.05.2024) at 12.30 P.M. to explain his conduct. 5. Call this matter again at 12.30 P.M today. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE LATER 6. This matter is taken up again at 12.30 P.M. 7. Mr. Saroj Kumar Mohapatra, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Bhubaneswar appears in person. 8. With regard to issuance and service of notice on the assessee, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the same had been issued in terms of Section 282 (1) (c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, wherein it has been mentioned that the service of a notice or summon can be served in the form of any electronic record. Therefore, it is contended that the notice has been deemed to have been served on the assessee. 9. But as regards issuance of notice on 18.03.2024 at 9.36 P.M. fixing the date of hearing to 19.03.2024 at 3.15 P.M., without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, Mr. Saroj Kumar Mohapatra, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax contended before this Court that since the notice has been issued without affording sufficient time to the assessee to answer the query, he intends to Page 3 of 3 recall the said notice and wants to issue fresh notice in accordacne with law. 10. Since the notice dated 18.03.2024 is undertaken to be recalled by the issuing authority, i.e. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Bhubaneswar, all conseqeuntials orders under Annexure-3 dated 28.03.2023 and Annexure-1 dated 29.03.2024 are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT, Bhubaneswar for its fresh adjudication by affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. 11. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Arun (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-May-2024 12:38:36 Signature Not Verified "