High Court of Orissa · Judgments and reasoned final orders
Jalandhar Sharma v. Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar Ward, Keonjhar & Others
W.P.(C) No. 15935 of 2024 ·
Faceless reassessment order under section 147 r/w section 144B raising Rs. 1,03,57,050 demand on alleged bogus purchases quashed where paragraph 3.5 falsely recorded that the assessee filed no reply despite uploaded replies and documents on record.
1. FACTS OF THE CASE
For AY 2019-20, the petitioner's assessment was reopened under section 147 on the allegation of bogus purchases. In response to notices issued during the faceless reassessment proceedings, the petitioner uploaded replies along with supporting documentary evidence on the portal (annexed as the Annexure-3 series to the writ petition). However, on 29.02.2024, the Assessment Unit passed the final reassessment order under section 147 read with section 144B raising a demand of Rs. 1,03,57,050 while stating in paragraph 3.5 that the assessee had failed to furnish any reply or documentary evidence.
2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT
Examining the Annexure-3 series acknowledgments alongside paragraph 3.5 of the impugned assessment order dated 29.02.2024, the Division Bench found a manifest contradiction on the face of the record: the Assessing Officer had proceeded on the erroneous premise of non-compliance while completely ignoring the replies and documents already uploaded by the petitioner. Relying on Tin Box Company v. CIT, (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC) and CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agrawal, (2014) 1 SCC 603, the Court held that passing an assessment order in oblivion of the assessee's on-record reply violates fundamental principles of natural justice and justifies writ interference despite the availability of an appellate remedy.
3. JUDICIAL DECISION
The High Court quashed the reassessment order dated 29.02.2024 passed under section 147 read with section 144B and the consequential demand notice for AY 2019-20, and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh reasoned order within two months after considering the petitioner's replies and granting an opportunity of hearing.
4. OUTCOME
Matter remanded; reassessment order dated 29.02.2024 and Rs. 1,03,57,050 demand quashed with direction for fresh adjudication within 2 months.
5. AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: Where a faceless assessment order recites 'no reply filed' (here in para 3.5) contrary to portal e-Filing acknowledgments showing uploaded replies and annexures, the High Court will exercise writ jurisdiction under the natural-justice exception in Chhabil Dass Agrawal and Tin Box Co.
Source and verification
Reviewed from the complete 7-page official High Court judgment PDF (20260219_ODHC010439272024.pdf, SHA-256: 4c388ec97e36e46040b0290b4e13096054c74054d80568776bcf2bdb38a71718).
Original PDF: 7 pages · SHA-256: 4c388ec97e36e46040b0290b4e13096054c74054d80568776bcf2bdb38a71718
Supplied source-reviewed note retained; original bytes and identity validation checked in this release. Substantive re-review is not claimed for this record.
Refers to the Income-tax Act, 1961 and allied statutory rules/circulars as applicable to the relevant assessment years.
No subsequent Supreme Court reversal or stay is recorded in the source judgment text.
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.