BIKRAM KUMAR BARIK V. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KHURDHA

WP(C)/20539/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Bikram Kumar Barik, the petitioner, who faced a reassessment by the Income Tax Department for the assessment year 2018-19, based on an alleged cash deposit of \\u20b92,20,89,010/- in his bank account. The petitioner, represented by advocate Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, claimed ignorance of this deposit and sought the court's intervention to allow an appeal against the reassessment order, which he had missed due to the demand notice under section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The revenue, represented by advocate Mr. A. Kedia, opposed the writ petition. The court, after considering the bank's communication clarifying the nature of the accounts and transactions, found merit in the petitioner's plea and provided the relief sought.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 670981 (HC-ORISSA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A KEDIA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K BHANJADEO
• Keywords: Appeal admission; Condonation of delay; Demand notice; Reassessment; Bank communication
• Section: 147; 144; 156; 144(b); 226(3)

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20539 of 2024 Bikram Kumar Barik …. Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate -versus- Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Khurdha and others …. Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Mr. A. Kedia, Advocate (Junior Standing Counsel) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO ORDER 04.10.2024 1. Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner (assessee). He submits, there was reassessment pertaining to assessment year 2018-19 on his client being an individual assessee. Information triggering the reassessment was discovery by revenue that ₹2,20,89,010/- was alleged cash deposit in his bank account with Allahabad Bank. His client then received notice of demand under section 156 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for ₹3,66,97,016/-. His client has lost his opportunity to prefer appeal Order No. 01. Page 2 of 4 against the demand. In the circumstances, he has come to Court on asserting he had no knowledge regarding deposit of the money in his savings bank account. This he has stated in paragraph-6 of the petition. Mr. Bhanjdeo seeks interference for direction upon the appellate authority to admit appeal to be preferred by his client, on condonation of delay. 2. Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and opposes the writ petition. 3. Petitioner has said in paragraph-6 of the petition, he had no knowledge regarding deposit of the money in his savings account instead of current account. On query from Court Mr. Bhanjadeo refers us to communication dated 29th May, 2024 made by his client’s banker to the Income Tax Officer (ITO). We reproduce below text of the communication. “This is in reference to your DIN and Letter No. ITBA/ COM/F/17/2024-25/1065136403 (1) dated 27.05.2024 on Notice under section 226(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 served to Shri Bikram Kumar Barik PAN-BWJPBO271L. In this connection we would like to place before you that the accounts mentioned in your demand notice pertains to BC Settlement Accounts (50365555570) issued by the Bank to Shri Barik for doing Business correspondent (BC) transactions as per RBI Guidelines. The commission / Page 3 of 4 income earned from these transactions are credited in his Savings Account (21218677468) as per Banks’ guidelines. Account No-50321444270 is a loan account availed by him and account No-50481706140 is a loan account which has been discharged by Shri Barik. This is for your information and necessary action please.” emphasis supplied 4. We are satisfied on petitioner’s plea that he had no knowledge regarding his income having had been credited to the savings bank account. It appears from the banks’ communication, the commission/income earned on transactions made by petitioner were credited to his savings account as per banks’ guidelines. It is a situation inviting exercise of our extraordinary power. 5. Petitioner will prefer appeal against reassessment order dated 22nd March, 2023 made under section 147/144/144-B pertaining to assessment year 2018-19. The appeal is to be filed within two weeks from date accompanied by application for condonation of delay. The appellate authority is left to decide on admission of the appeal. Petitioner has liberty to rely on this order in his application for condonation. Page 4 of 4 6. Impugned notice will remain stayed till four weeks from date provided, petitioner files appeal by 18th October, 2024. In event the appeal is filed accompanied by condonation of delay application within that date, the stay will be extended till two weeks after decision of the appellate authority regarding admission of the appeal/interim protection as may be sought by petitioner. If no steps are taken by petitioner to file petition and obtain protection from the appellate authority, the stay will stand automatically vacated after four weeks from date. 7. The writ petition is disposed of. (Arindam Sinha) Judge (M.S. Sahoo) Judge Prasant Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 04-Oct-2024 15:25:12 Signature Not Verified "