Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
HARISH TANDON, MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Sunil Kumar Sahoo Son of Narayan Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against assessment order under it act (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on notice and compliance issues (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of jurisdiction and statutory provisions (Para 6) |
| 4. setting aside of assessment order and remand for fresh assessment (Para 8) |
| 5. conclusion and directives of the court (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
Challenge is laid in the instant writ petition against Assessment framed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide Order dated 14.11.2017 of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Bhubaneswar with respect to assessment year 2012-13 (Financial Year 2011-12) purported to have been passed in pursuance of Notice under Section 148 and subsequent Notices dated 14.06.2017 and 23.10.2017 under Section 142, and the petitioner craves indulgence of this Court exercising power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for grant of following relief(s):
(i) Call for the records;
(iii) And further Your Lordships may be pleased to issue rule nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the order of attachment dated 21.05.2025 issued by the opposite party No.3 under Annexure-4 shall not be
Mandatory service of notice under tax law is crucial to validate assessment; failure vitiates proceedings and necessitates fresh assessment.
Notices for reopening assessments issued beyond limitation period are invalid, and jurisdictional challenges can be maintained despite availability of alternative remedies.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
