Subash Chandra Agarwala V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur and National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

WP(C)/29182/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Subash Chandra Agarwala, the petitioner, who contested an assessment order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur, for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioner received a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and subsequently requested the reasons for the notice, which were not provided. Instead, further notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) were issued, demanding documents. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, later issued a show-cause notice and passed an assessment order demanding Rs.30,48,372, which the petitioner appealed against. The appeal was delayed despite the demand being adjusted against the petitioner's refunds from other years. The court found that the appeal was ripe for hearing and directed the appellate authority to expedite the process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 824224 (HC-ODISHA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SUBASH MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHIJEET AGARWAL
• Keywords: Appeal Pending; Assessment Year 2016-17; Demand; Income Tax; Notice; Refund adjustment
• Section: 148; 142(1); 143(2); 250

Judgement Text

" Page 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.29182 of 2025 Subash Chandra Agarwala …. Petitioner Mr. Abhijeet Agarwal, Advocate -versus- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Subash Chandra Mohanty, Senior Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 18.12.2025 01. 1. Heard Mr. Abhijeet Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Subash Chandra Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department-opposite parties. 2. The petitioner was issued with notice dated 31st March, 2021 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the IT Act”) for the Assessment Year 2016-17 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Sambalpur. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner a made request for supply of reasons for initiating proceeding under said provision. 2.1. It is alleged that instead of supplying the reasons, the authority concerned by issue of notice dated 15th November, 2021 under Section 143(2) of the IT Act sought for certain documents and further notice was issued under Section 142(1) of the IT Act for furnishing documents. Having responded, the petitioner made further request to the authority to supply reasons. However, on 28th March, 2022, the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Printed from counselvise.com Page 2 of 3 (opposite party no.2) issued show-cause notice and sought for response from the petitioner. 2.2. On an assessment order being passed on 31st March, 2022 in pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-17 by raising a demand of Rs.30,48,372/-, the petitioner approached the appellate authority by filing an appeal. Though the assessee was waiting for the appeal to be heard and disposed within a reasonable period, the refund arising in other assessment years were adjusted against the demand pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17. Be that be, a notice dated 20th November, 2024 came to be issued for hearing the appeal filed under Section 250 of the IT Act, responding to which the petitioner filed written submissions on 12th December, 2024 before the appellate authority-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that despite written submissions being submitted since one year, the appeal is kept pending by the authority concerned. 3.1. He submitted that though the petitioner approached the authority concerned for disposal of the appeal as the amount of demand, which is subject matter of appeal, has been recovered by way of adjustment from the refunds that flowed in different assessment years, the same has not yet been considered. It is forcefully submitted that on the one hand the appeal, though ripe for hearing, is not taken up for disposal, on the other hand the demand arising out of assessment order which is assailed in the appeal has been recovered from the refunds. 4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Department has not raised any objection to the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, yet submitted that Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 3 direction can be issued to the appellate authority to conclude the hearing of the appeal, if otherwise it is ready for hearing. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for respective parties and after going through the records, it appears that since it is not in dispute that written notes in connection with hearing notice dated 20th November, 2024 has already been furnished to the appellate authority, this Court feels it expedient, keeping in mind that the refunds of certain assessment years have been adjusted against the demand pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17, to direct the appellate authority concerned to afford opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner at the earliest and dispose of the appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. As a result of disposal of the writ petition, Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Printed from counselvise.com Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Dec-2025 19:10:20 Signature Not Verified "