High Court of Orissa · Judgments and reasoned final orders
Jogeswar Nayak v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Visakhapatnam & Ors.
WP(C) No. 22104 of 2025 ·
Section 127 jurisdiction transfer and section 132B(1)(i) release of Rs. 12,00,000 seized cash: transfer from ACIT Central Circle Sambalpur to ITO Bargarh already granted by PCIT order dated 31.10.2025; disputed ownership claim over seized cash relegated to competent authority.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
On 02.04.2019, police seized Rs. 12,00,000 from the petitioner (an accountant of M/s. Maa Nathaldai Fuels) which was requisitioned by the Income Tax Department at Sambalpur and deposited in the PD account. Following a 'nil' demand assessment under section 143(3), the petitioner sought transfer of his PAN jurisdiction from ACIT Central Circle, Sambalpur to ITO Bargarh and refund of the Rs. 12,00,000 with interest under section 132B(1)(i), contending that the money belonged to proprietress Sabita Patel.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
During the pendency of the writ petition, the PCIT (Central), Visakhapatnam passed an order under section 127 on 31.10.2025 transferring the petitioner's case from Central Circle, Sambalpur to ITO, Bargarh, redressing the first prayer. On the second prayer for refund of Rs. 12,00,000, the Division Bench held that whether the seized cash belonged to the proprietress involved a disputed question of fact requiring evidence before the competent authority rather than writ adjudication.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
Disposed of WP(C) No. 22104 of 2025 recording that the section 127 transfer prayer stood redressed and granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority for adjudication of the refund claim.
4. OUTCOME
Mixed / Partly redressed - Section 127 transfer prayer redressed by PCIT order dated 31.10.2025; section 132B refund prayer relegated to competent authority due to disputed ownership facts.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: where cash is seized from an employee/accountant and claimed to belong to the employer, both the employee and employer should file a joint or corroborated evidentiary application under section 132B before the jurisdictional AO after section 127 transfer.
Source and verification
4-page official High Court of Orissa judgment PDF (20251113_ODHC010535612025.pdf).
Original PDF: 4 pages · SHA-256: 0f01cbf66a5375b5503fe011ae5771716ad05e2c9604e740e1b0fb5246042b1c
Supplied source-reviewed note retained; original bytes and identity validation checked in this release. Substantive re-review is not claimed for this record.
Applies sections 127 and 132B(1)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Income-tax Act, 2025 equivalence is not verified.
Full primary judgment PDF read page-by-page and verified against the AKHB Google Drive repository. Comprehensive subsequent judicial treatment has not been independently verified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.
General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.