WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 1 of 31

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.28067 of 2025

In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India, 1950

***

M/s. Sanjay Kumar Bijay Kumar

Adaspur, Cuttack - 754011

Represented through its partner

Sri Sudarshan Sahoo,

Aged about 72 years,

Son of Late Udayanath Sahoo. … Petitioner

-VERSUS-

1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I

Aayakar Bhawan, Rajaswa Vihar

Bhubaneswar, Pin: 751 007.

2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Circle-1(1), Cuttack

Aayakar Bhawan, Shelter Square

District: Cuttack

Odisha, Pin: 753 008.

3. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

Range-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Shelter Square

District: Cuttack

Odisha, Pin: 753 008.

4. Income Tax Officer

Ward-1(1), Cuttack

Aayakar Bhawan, Shelter Square

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 2 of 31

District: Cuttack

Odisha, Pin: 753 008.

5. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC),

Represented by Additional/joint/

Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/

Income Tax Officer,

National Faceless Assessment Centre

New Delhi. ... Opposite parties

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioner : M/s. Pranaya Kishore Harichandan,

and Pragyant Harichandan,

Advocates

For the Opposite parties : Mr. Subash Chandra Mohanty,

Senior Standing Counsel

(Income Tax Department)

P R E S E N T:

HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE

MR. HARISH TANDON

AND

HONOURABLE JUSTICE

MR. MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Date of Hearing : 05.02.2026 :: Date of Judgment : 24.02.2026

JUDGMENT

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.—

The petitioner felt constrained to knock the doors of the

writ court alleging lackadaisical attitude of the Deputy

Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Cuttack (for

short, “DCIT”), who wantonly seeks to proceed with

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 3 of 31

adjudication process under Section 147 by issue of

Notice dated 30.06.2025 under Section 148 (Annexure-

13) rejecting the explanation offered by it in connection

with Order dated 24.06.2025 passed under Section

148A(3) (Annexure-2) in connection with Notice dated

18.03.2025 under Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax

Act, 1961 (Annexure-1) on specious plea of information

received in connection with income pertaining to

Assessment Year 2019-20 (Previous Year 2018-19).

Facts culled out from writ petition:

2. The petitioner, a partnership firm carries on its business

dealing in cattle feed and building material on wholesale

and retail basis since 1985-86 in the name and style

“M/S. SANJAY KUMAR BIJAY KUMAR”, being allotted with

Permanent Account Numbers — “ABAFS4271L” (for

convenience be referred to as “PAN-1”) and

“AATFS3658P” (for convenience be referred to as “PAN-

2”). It has been furnishing returns under the provisions

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “I T Act”)

disclosing PAN-2, since Assessment Year 2003-04, but it

never utilized PAN-1 in connection with its business

activities. However, due to inadvertence it disclosed PAN-

1 in certain banking transactions with the Canara Bank,

nonetheless, it requested the Bank to take out

corrections in its records mentioning PAN-2.

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 4 of 31

2.1. On collecting information relating to the deposits made

with the said Bank, a Notice under Section 148A(1) of

the IT Act dated 18.03.2025 qua PAN-1 for the

Assessment Year 2019-20 (Financial Year 2018-19) was

issued by the DCIT, to which a response was submitted

that on the advice of Commissioner a new PAN-2 being

allotted, the returns have been filed, but the Bankers

having not updated their system reflected PAN-1 in the

alleged transactions. It is explained that the transactions

in question were shown in the returns reflecting PAN-2.

Notwithstanding such fact being placed before the DCIT,

he passed Order dated 24.06.2025 under Section

148A(3) vide Annexure-2 contemplating assessment of

escaped income under Section 147 by issue of Notice

under Section 148 of the IT Act.

2.2. Accordingly, a Notice dated 30.06.2025 under Section

148 of the IT Act vide Annexure-13 is issued by the DCIT

for assessment of escaped income under Section 147 as

against PAN-1. Further intimation was also issued on

25.07.2025 in this regard.

Arguments of counsel for respective parties:

3. With the above factual narration, Sri Pranaya Kishore

Harichandan, learned Advocate drew attention of this

Court to Notice dated 23.02.2023 issued under Section

148A(b) of the IT Act with respect to banking

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 5 of 31

transactions with the Canara Bank to the tune of

Rs.4,42,47,290/- pertaining to Financial Year 2018-19

(Assessment Year 2019-20), to which a response being

furnished by the petitioner, an Order dated 22.03.2023

under Section 148A(d) came to be passed by the ITO,

Ward 1(1), Cuttack for assessment under Section 147 by

issue of Notice under Section 148 against PAN-1. It is

forcefully submitted that after considering the reply and

undertaking verification of the records, the ITO assessed

the income to NIL.

3.1. The learned counsel highlighted that notwithstanding

the ITO, Ward 1(1), Cuttack having verified the records,

came to hold that the transactions with the Canara

Bank was disclosed in the return furnished against PAN-

2 and therefore, total income of the petitioner would not

be taxed again against PAN-1. Hence, he urged that

double taxation is anathema to the principles of taxation

being beyond the purport envisioned in Article 265 of the

Constitution of India. The petitioner-assessee cannot be

subjected to double jeopardy.

3.2. Sri Subash Chandra Mohanty, learned Senior Standing

Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department

submitted that the writ petition challenging the Notice

dated 30.06.2025 under Section 148 (Annexure-13) read

with intimation dated 25.07.2025 under Section 144B

(Annexure-14) issued pursuant to Order dated

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 6 of 31

24.06.2025 (Annexure-2) passed under Section 148A(3)

upon consideration of reply to Notice dated 18.03.2025

(Annexure-1) under Section 148A(1) of the IT Act is not

maintainable and the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed in limine.

3.3. Advancing argument further he would submit that the

petitioner is not denied to avail ample opportunities

before the Assessing Officer and other statutory

authorities, if circumstances would so arise, in order to

justify its claim of double taxation by adducing cogent

evidence and demonstrating on facts that the

transactions of deposit in the Canara Bank had already

been considered against PAN-2 instead of PAN-1. Having

not filed returns qua PAN-1, the DCIT is the competent

authority to institute proceeding under Section 147

treating the transactions with the Canara Bank

indicating PAN-1 as escaped assessment of income.

3.4. There is no plausible reason available for the petitioner

to circumvent the procedure established in the IT Act,

which is self-contained Code. Hence, it would not be

appropriate for this Court to entertain the writ petition.

4. Heard Sri Pranaya Kishore Harichandan, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subash Chandra

Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for

the Income Tax Department.

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 7 of 31

Discussions:

5. On perusal of record and documents forming part of the

writ petition, this Court is persuaded that relegating the

petitioner to rigmarole of adjudicatory process of the IT

Act would not only cause embarrassment and/or

prejudice, but also give scope for the Assessing Officer to

review the view already expressed leading to unfair

burden to the assessee as well as the Revenue. Since the

question posed by the petitioner touches upon the

jurisdiction to re-do the exercise by the DCIT, which the

ITO had already done upon participation of the assessee,

this Court repels the contention of the learned Senior

Standing Counsel with respect to his argument that the

petition is not entertainable particularly when facts are

not disputed and remained uncontroverted.

5.1. Taking note of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vrs.

Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603 and Godrej

Sara Lee Ltd. Vrs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-

Assessing Authority, (2023) 3 SCR 871, there is no cavil

that existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute

bar for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The

Assessment Order dated 29.03.2023 of ITO, Ward 1(1),

Cuttack reveals that considering the explanation of the

petitioner that it had disclosed the alleged transactions

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 8 of 31

with the Canara Bank in the return mentioning PAN-2

and it abandoned PAN-1 and upon verification of

records, he came to hold that the return of income was

furnished in the return in PAN-2. Cursory glance at

Notice dated 18.03.2025 issued under Section 148A(1)

by the DCIT clearly shows that the self-same transaction

with the Canara Bank was the subject-matter in the

assessment proceeding under Section 147 before the

ITO, Ward 1(1) pursuant to Notice dated 23.02.2023

issued under Section 148A(b) of the IT Act. Therefore, it

can be safely inferred that same transaction ought not to

be have been subjected to re-verification by a different

authority by undertaking assessment proceeding under

Section 147. Not entertaining the present writ petition

would ensue prejudice as for the same cause of action

the petitioner has to engage itself again for the purpose

of assessment.

5.2. In Muljibhai Patel Vrs. Nandlal Khodidas Barot, AIR 1974

SC 2105, the Supreme Court held that the High Court is

not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution merely in

considering the petitioner’s right to relief, question of

facts at fault to be determined. The High Court has

jurisdiction to try issues both on facts and law. In case

complex question of fact is raised, which may for its

determination require oral evidence to be taken, the

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 9 of 31

High Court may decline to entertain the writ petition.

However, it is the discretion of the High Court to exercise

on sound and in conformity with judicial principle.

5.3. In State of Tripura Vrs. Manoranjan Chakraborty, (2001)

10 SCC 740, it is held that if gross injustice is done and

it can be shown that for good reason the Court should

interfere, then notwithstanding the alternative remedy

which may be available by way of appeal or revision, the

writ Court can in an appropriate case exercise its

jurisdiction to do substantial justice.

5.4. A Division Bench of this Court having referred to very

many decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

VFPL ASIPL JV Company Vrs. Union of India, 2020 (III)

ILR-CUT 388 observed thus:

“32. The word “efficacious” is adjective according to

Grammar and its noun is “efficacy”. The word

“efficacy” is derived from Latin word “efficacie”

which means capacity to produce results. The word

„efficacious‟ accordingly means able to produce the

intended effect or result.

33. In Abdul Sammad Vrs. Executive Committee of the

Marigaon Mahkuma Parishad, AIR 1981 Gau 15, the

Gauhati High Court held that it is well-known that

the meaning of the term “efficacious” is “able to

produce the intended result”. It is, therefore, held

that the preliminary objection raised by the opposite

parties with regard to maintainability of the writ

petition is hereby negatived and as such, this Court

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 10 of 31

held that the writ petitions are maintainable and

issue No.(i) is accordingly answered in affirmative.”

5.5. In the above perspective if the present case is analysed,

the objection of the learned Senior Standing Counsel

against entertainment of writ petition on the ground that

efficacious remedy is available for the petitioner to

participate in the proceeding to determine escaped

assessment under Section 147 by issue of Notice dated

30.06.2025 under Section 148 (Annexure-13) and

subsequent intimation dated 25.07.2025 for completion

of assessment adhering to the procedure laid in Section

144B (Annexure-14) by the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack, is

to be overruled.

6. This takes this Court to examine that both the

proceedings of the DCIT and the ITO are based on self-

same transactions with the Canara Bank.

6.1. The Notice dated 30.06.2025 issued by the DCIT under

Section 148 (Annexure-13) emanates from Order dated

24.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) of the IT Act

by the DCIT, Circle 1(1) of Cuttack, relevant portion of

which reads as follows:

PAN:

ABAFS4271L

A.Y.:

2019-20

DIN & Notice No.:

ITBA/AST/F/148A/2025-26/1077734077(1)

* * *

During the Financial Year 2018-19, M/s. Sanjay Kumar

Bijay Kumar [PAN: ABAFS4271L] has deposited cash in

the following banks mentioned below:

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 11 of 31

Sl.

No.

Name of transaction Name of the bank Amount (in Rs.)

1. Cash deposits or

cash withdrawals

Canara Bank 90,78,290

2. -do- -do- 3,51,69,000

Total 4,42,47,290

On verification by this office it is observed that the

assessee M/s. Sanjay Kumar Bijay Kumar is filing its

returns using PAN: AATFS3658P from Assessment Year

2007-08 onwards. However, the assessee has used PAN:

ABAFS4271L in bank accounts maintained by it in

Canara Bank during the Financial Year 2018-19. It is

pertinent to mention here that for similar ground an Order

under Section 147 read with Section 144 passed by the

ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack on 29.03.2023 computing total

income of the assessee as NIL. Hence, this office treats

that total amounts to the tune of Rs.4,42,47,290/-

remains unexplained and thereby escaped

assessment of income of Rs.4,42,47,290 within the

meaning of Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961.

Considering above facts and circumstances into account

and on the basis of material available on record as well

as to protect the interest of revenue, it is considered that

the assessee‟s case is a fit case to issue notice u/s 148 of

the Act, for the impugned Assess Year 2019-20.

This order is being issued after obtaining prior approval of

the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Cuttack

as per Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

6.2. Such a perception of the DCIT discarding merit of the

explanation proffered by the petitioner smacks

arbitrariness and tainted with whimsical exercise of

power stemming on the same provision(s) which had

already been invoked by the ITO while investigating into

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 12 of 31

the fact of deposit of cash to the tune of

Rs.4,42,47,290/- in the Canara Bank by disclosing PAN-

1 instead of PAN-2. This fact is discernible from the

following factual details as obtained in Annexure-7, i.e.,

Order dated 22.03.2023 passed under Section 148A(d)

by the ITO:

“In response, the assessee submitted written compliance

as under:

„The assessee like to inform that the PAN: ABSFS4271L is

one old one which the assessee is not using since

Assessment Year 2003-04. The assesse is regularly filing

ITR under PAN: AATFS3658P disclosing its income. Photo

copy of the ITR along with balance sheet for the

Assessment Year 2003-04 is enclosed herewith and

accordingly for the Assessment Year 2019-20 the

assessee after auditing their books of accounts under

Section 44AB of the Act by a CA filed the return by

disclosing total income of Rs.51,12,820/- on 30.10.2019

under the PAN: AATFS3658P. In the meantime the

assessee has filed an application dated 06.03.2023

explaining in details before jurisdictional authority for

surrender of same as said PAN is de-duplicate one.‟

The submission of the assesse is perused.

No shred of evidence could be produced against said

assertion. No Profits & Loss account and Balance Sheets

were produced by the assessee for the impugned

Assessment Year 2019-20 to explain that the deposits

made in the current account and the assessee shall have

opportunity to furnish details during contemplated

assessment proceeding.

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 13 of 31

Thus, with regard to sources of cash deposits, the

assessee’s explanation without any supporting

verifiable evidence is found unacceptable at this

stage of the proceeding for which cash deposited in

current account of the assessee for Rs.4,42,47,290/-

remained unexplained. Similarly, in absence of any

supporting evidence interest income of Rs.11,306/- also

remained unexplained.

In the case of ACIT Vrs. Rajesh Javeri Stock Brokers Pvt.

Limited, Civil Appeal No.2830 of 2007 (SC) in para 16 it is

held that „in other words, at the initiation stage, what is

required is reason to believe, but not the established fact

of escapement of income. At the stage of issue of notice,

the only question is whether there was a relevant

material on which a reasonable person could have formed

a requisite belief. Whether the material would conclusively

proved the escapement is not the concern at that stage.

This is so because the formation of belief by the AO is

within the realm of subjective satisfaction.‟

Under the above facts and circumstances, the

aggregate amount of Rs.4,42,58,596/- i.e.

[Rs.4,42,47,290 + Rs.11,306] is prima facie

considered to be assets available in its hand and

income corresponding to said deposits has escaped

assessment for the assessment year 2019-20 within

the meaning of provisions of Section 147 of the IT

Act. Accordingly, it is considered to be a fit case for

issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act.”

6.3. After examining the genuineness of said cash deposits to

the tune of Rs.4,42,47,290/-, the ITO passed

Assessment Order dated 30.03.2023 under Section 147

of the IT Act with respect to Assessment Year 2019-20

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 14 of 31

enclosing therewith Computation Sheet with the

following observation:

“In response to notice under Section 148, the assessee

was required to file its return of income within 30 days.

But the assessee did not file its return of income in

response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act. In

response, the assessee has explained through e-

proceeding. The relevant portion is recast as under:

„That the assessee likes to state that, since A.Y. 2003-04,

they are not using PAN: ABAFS4271L. They are using the

PAN: AATFS3658P and regularly filing the IT return under

said PAN.(2). Similarly the assessee has also filed IT has

also filed IT return under PAN: AATFS3658P for the A.Y.

2018-19, disclosing the total income of Rs.37,04,680/- on

06.10.2018. Before filing the IT return CA has

audited the Books of accounts under Section 44AB,

by considering the deposits, out of trading income,

in Canara Bank current account

No.0353214000010 & 0328201001453 amounting

to Rs.3,31,79,990/- & Rs.4,99,76,500/- respectively.

The said current A/c. Nos. are mentioned in the balance

sheet as well as IT return which are filed along with

written submission in response to notice dated

06.01.2023. Copy of both the Canara Bank accounts are

enclosed for reference. (3) Further the assessee has

maintained day to day cash book relating to F.Y. 2017-

18, wherein the deposit made under the Bank Accounts in

question has been reflected and same has also been

audited under Section 44AB of the Act under PAN:

AATFS3658P. Copy of the cash book is enclosed for

reference. (4) It is pertinent to mention here that while the

bank started obtaining KYC from their customers, the

assessee inadvertently mentioned the PAN: ABAFS4271L,

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 15 of 31

but subsequently informed the banks to correct the PAN to

AATFS3658P and while depositing the cheques, DD or

cash, the assessee is also quoting the same in deposit

sleep which can be evident from copy of the deposit slip is

enclosed for reference. (5) that the Branch Manager,

Canara Bank has also given confirmation in writing that,

the assessee firm is operating two banks A/c. bearing

0328201001453 and 0353214000010 against the PAN-

AATFS3658P. A copy of the confirmation letter is enclosed

for reference. (6) In view of the above submission, it is

stated that, there is no escapement of assessment under

Section 147 of the Act, as the amount deposited in Canara

Bank Accounts has been considered, while filing the

return under PAN: AATFS3658P for the Assessment Year

2018-19. As such the assessee submits that, the self-

same amount and self-same period should not be taxed

twice, which will amount to double taxation and prohibits

under the law. This also incorporates the principles of

„autrefois convict‟ or double jeopardy, hence proceeding

initiated under Section 148 of the Act may be dropped.‟

***

The submission of the assessee is perused. On

verification of the audited P&L, Balance Sheet, ITR and

bank ledger, it is found the contention of the assessee is

substantiated with corroborated documentary evidences.

The current account bearing No.0353214000010 and CA

No.0328201001453 of the firm maintained at Canara

Bank and all transactions of deposits & withdrawals

thereof were accounted for in the books of accounts for the

Financial Year 2017-18 relevant to the Assessment Year

2018-19 of M/s. Sanjay Kumar Bijay Kumar, PAN-

AATFS3658P which is certified by the Chartered

Accountant and return of income has filed by the

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 16 of 31

assessee for the said Assessment Year in PAN-

AATFS2358P.

Under the facts & circumstances of the case and in

view of above discussion, no adverse inference is

drawn after verifying of submission made by the

assessee, bank authority and the auditors

supported by documentary evidences. Total income of

the assessee is assessed at Rs. NIL for the relevant

Assessment Year 2018-19 in PAN-ABAFS4271L. ”

6.4. A careful reading of contents of the Notice(s) and the

Order(s) of the DCIT and the ITO would manifestly

demonstrate that the ITO on earlier occasion for the self-

same transaction relating to cash deposits with the

Canara Bank having verified the books of accounts,

returns and bank accounts taking note of explanation of

the petitioner came to hold that the transaction was

reflected in the return against PAN-2 and there was no

escapement of income. On the contrary, the Notice/

Order of the DCIT indicates that for the same

transactions respecting Assessment Year 2019-20 are

premised on the basis that the petitioner used PAN-1 for

banking transactions sought to initiate proceeding under

Section 147 by issuing notice under Section 148 in the

year 2025 which had already been adjudicated on facts

by the ITO in the year 2023 under the same provisions.

6.5. The said fact remained uncontroverted by Sri Subash

Chandra Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel. He

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 17 of 31

conceded that deposit of Rs.4,42,47,290/- was subject-

matter before the ITO and now the DCIT issued notice to

examine the same transaction.

6.6. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that for

the same transaction relating to deposit of

Rs.4,42,47,290/- in the Canara Bank cannot be subject-

matter of assessment under Section 147 twice; one by

the ITO and the other by the DCIT.

6.7. The legal maxim, Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem

causa, meaning thereby, no man should be vexed twice

over for the same cause would fit to the present context.

In Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair Vrs. Narayanan Nair,

(2004) 3 SCC 277 taking note of meaning of “cause of

action”, it has been laid down as follows:

“13. Section 11 (of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

contains the rule of conclusiveness of the judgment

which is based partly on the maxim of Roman

jurisprudence “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium”

(it concerns the State that there be an end to law

suits) and partly on the maxim “nemo debet bis

vexari pro una et eadem causa” (no man should be

vexed twice over for the same cause). The section

does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court but

operates as a bar to the trial of the suit or issue, if

the matter in the suit was directly and substantially

in issue (and finally decided) in the previous suit

between the same parties litigating under the same

title in a Court, competent to try the subsequent suit

in which such issue has been raised.”

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 18 of 31

6.8. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Vrs. Shree

Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd., (2009) 5 SCR 879 it

has been enunciated as follows:

“45. Before we part with the case, we may address to the

plea of res judicata raised by the learned Senior

Counsel for the Department. Mr. K. Radhakrishnan

pressed into service few legal maxims in this regard.

It is true that maxim Nemo debet bis vexari pro

una et eadem causa is founded on principle of

private justice as it states that no man ought

to be twice put to trouble if it appear to the

court that it is for one and the same cause. The

maxim Interest republicae sit finis litium

concerns the State that law suits be not

protracted. This maxim is based on public

policy. In our opinion, these maxims cannot be

applied as a rule of thumb in the taxation

matters. In the matters of classification of goods,

the principles that have been followed, by the

courts— which we endorse— are that there may not

be justification for changing the classification

without a change in the nature or a change in the

use of the product; something more is required for

changing the classification especially when the

product remains the same. Earlier decision on an

issue inter parties is a cogent factor in the

determination of the same issue. The

applicability of maxim Res judicata pro

veritate occipitur in the matters of

classification of goods has to be seen in that

perspective. The interpretation given by this Court

in Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. Vrs.

Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, (1996) 9 SCC

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 19 of 31

402 with regard to this product has been considered

and applied by us after amendment because

Chapter Sub-heading 3003.31 does not contain

definition of Ayurvedic Medicine and the product

DML in nature, character and uses remains the

same as it was prior to amendment.”

6.9. In the instant case, nothing is suggested by Sri Subash

Chandra Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel

that the subject and context for adjudication before the

ITO vide Assessment Order dated 30.03.2023 of the ITO,

Ward 1(1), Cuttack passed under Section 147 read with

Section 144 of the IT Act pertaining to Assessment Year

2019-20 qua PAN: ABAFS4271L (Annexure-10) was

different and distinct from the present investigation to be

continued pursuant to Notice dated 30.06.2025 issued

under Section 148 by the DCIT (Annexure-13) in

connection with his Order dated 24.06.2025 passed

under Section 148A(3) of the said Act. Applying the

principles as exposited by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India referred to supra this Court is inclined to show

indulgence in the matter by holding that the petitioner-

assessee should not face trial for the same cause

(subject-matter) twice.

6.10. It is manifested ex facie on the record that the ITO,

Ward-1(1), Cuttack passed Order dated 22.03.2023

under Section 148A(d) of the IT Act relating to

Assessment Year 2019-20 against PAN-1 stating clearly

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 20 of 31

therein that proceeding was initiated with respect to

cash deposit of Rs.4,42,47,290/- with the Canara Bank

and said proceeding upon verification of records

culminated in passing of Assessment Order dated

30.03.2023 and Computation Sheet appended thereto

clearly reflects the position in this regard. The petitioner

enclosed evidences of deposits made in the said bank

and copies of return(s) to demonstrate that the said

amount(s) was disclosed in the return filed against PAN-

2. Scrutiny of Order dated 24.06.2025 passed under

Section 148(3) of the IT Act, it leads to depict

unequivocally that the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack sought

to initiate proceeding for assessment invoking Section

147 by issue of Notice dated 30.06.2025 under Section

148 and treating the same amount of deposit being

made with the Canara Bank, i.e., Rs.4,42,47,290/- as

escaped income. Whereas the assessment under Section

147 came to be concluded by the ITO by passing

Assessment Order and Computation Sheet attached

thereto, the DCIT should not have rejected the

explanation offered by the petitioner in response to

Notice under Section 148A(1) for with respect to the

same period and the same transaction treating it to be

escaped income two assessments under same provision

cannot be held tenable in the eye of law. It can thus

seemly be held that the DCIT has initiated proceeding for

assessment under Section 147 by issue of Notice under

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 21 of 31

Section 148 by rejecting mechanically the explanation

proffered by the petitioner in connection with the Notice

dated 18.03.2025 without ascribing plausible reason.

6.11. Nothing is placed on record by the learned Senior

Standing Counsel to indicate that the Assessment Order

dated 30.03.2023 of the ITO has ever been challenged

and/or varied or reversed by any higher forum. Hence,

the said order of ITO having attained finality, there was

no scope or occasion for the DCIT to initiate another

proceeding under the same provision.

6.12. Finality is attached to the finding of fact based on

analysis of evidence on record by passing order of

assessment and order passed by the quasi judicial

authority is not a matter to be trifled with. It cannot also

be stated that all finding of fact of the authorities

concerned would be correct on all counts. Nonetheless,

for functionality to exist and order to prevail, the

doctrine of finality of adjudication often eclipses or over

powers concerns or considerations that otherwise exist

in favour of accuracy or correctness of the fact-finding

adjudicatory process. Once a proceeding is shown to

have been concluded on participation of the assessee

before the Assessing Officer, the finality of such

adjudication must be maintained. In the same breath, so

far as the State/Department is concerned, there can be

no exception.

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 22 of 31

6.13. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing

paragraphs on the facts and in the circumstances of the

case, the Order dated 24.06.2025 under Section 148A(3)

(Annexure-2) made with reference to Notice dated

18.03.2025 issued under Section 148A(1) (Annexure-1)

along with Notice issued under Section 148 dated

30.06.2025 to proceed with assessment under Section

147 (Annexure-13) coupled with intimation dated

25.07.2025 for completion of assessment in accordance

to the procedure laid down under Section 144B of the IT

Act (Annexure-14) are bad in law and hence, the

subsequent proceedings undertaken in the year 2025 by

the DCIT as the Assessment Order of the ITO attained

finality, being not shown to have been challenged and

the view expressed by the ITO being not stated to have

been overturned by any higher fora, the proceeding

instituted by the DCIT is held as invalid.

6.14. To fortify the view so expressed, a reference to following

observations contained in CIT Vrs. Sanjay Kumar Garg,

2015 SCC OnLine Del 11714 may throw light on the

issue at hand:

“10. The legal position appears to be fairly well settled. In

S.B. Jain, Income Tax Officer, Nagpur Vrs. Mahendra

(1972) 83 ITR 104 (SC) a notice was issued to the

Assessee on 5th January 1962 under Section

34(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 seeking to

reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 1946-

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 23 of 31

47. While the said proceedings were pending, the

Income Tax Act, 1961 came into force with effect

from 1st April 1962. The challenge by the Assessee

to the validity of the notice issued under the 1922

Act succeeded with the Bombay High Court

quashing the said notice by the Order dated 6th

March 1963. Thereafter the Income Tax Officer

issued a fresh notice on 26th March 1963 under

Section 148 of the Act in respect of the very

assessment which had sought to be reopened by the

earlier notice under Section 34(1)(a) of the 1922 Act.

The Supreme Court held that the proceedings

initiated under Section 34(1)(a) of the 1922 Act were

pending at the time when the 1961 Act came into

force and, therefore, the Income Tax Officer was not

competent to issue a fresh notice under Section 148

of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

11. In Nilofer Hameed Vrs. Income Tax Officer, (1999)

235 ITR 161 (Ker) after referring to a number of

judgments of the High Courts, it was held by the

Kerala High Court that

„if an assessment is pending either by way of

original assessment or by way of reassessment

proceedings, the Assessing Officer cannot issue a

notice under Section 148 but if no proceedings are

pending either by way of original assessment or by

way of reassessment, he can issue a notice under

Section 148 within the time mentioned.‟ ***”

6.15. Referring to such decision, in the case of Sanjay Kumar

Garg (supra) in Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. Vrs. Income

Tax Officer, Ward 14-2, Delhi, W.P.(C) No.8589 of 2022,

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 24 of 31

vide Judgment dated 27.10.2022 the Hon’ble Delhi High

Court said as follows:

“3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further states that

the assessment order dated 30th March, 2022, has

been passed without disposing of the objections

raised by the petitioner vide Letter dated 22nd July,

2021. He submits that non-disposal of objections

before passing the assessment order is in disregard

of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the

case of M/s. GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vrs.

Income Tax Officers & Ors. (2003) 1 SCC 72.

***

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this

Court is of the view that it is settled law that during

the subsistence of a reassessment proceedings,

another reassessment notice cannot be issued for

the same assessment year. The Division Bench of

this Court in CIT Vrs. Sanjay Kumar Garg, (2015) 9

TMI 390 (Delhi High Court) = 2015 SCC OnLine Del

11714 has held as under:

„9. The contention of the Assessee which has been

accepted by the ITAT is that when the re-

assessment proceedings pursuant to the

notices issued on 21st September 2005 were

still pending and had not been completed by

31st December 2006 as was required by law, it

was legally impermissible that fresh notices

under Section 148 of the Act could be issued to

the Assessee. The ITAT has after examining a

large number of decisions of the High Court

and the Supreme Court come to the conclusion

that the issuing of fresh notices under Section

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 25 of 31

148 of the Act for Assessment Years 2001-02

to 2004-05 was impermissible in law. The

assessments for the said Assessment Years

were annulled as being barred by

limitation.***‟

11. This Court is further in agreement with the

submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner

that non-disposal of petitioner‟s objections dated

22nd July, 2021, was contrary to the law laid down

by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. GKN

Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (supra).

12. This Court, is also in agreement with the contention

of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there

has been a violation of principles of natural justice

inasmuch as the Petitioner was not given a

reasonable opportunity to respond to the statement

of Sh. Kewal Krishna Arora shared by the AO with

the petitioner on 25th March, 2022.”

6.16. Being abreast of such ruling on the fact-situation

obtained in Sanjay Kumar Garg (supra) and Kamdhenu

Enterprises Ltd. (supra), in the instant case, however, the

Notice under Section 148 reached its destination on the

Assessment Order being passed by the ITO, Ward 1(1),

Cuttack under Section 147 on 30.03.2023 which had

already attained finality and, hence, on the same

grounds involving same transaction qua the same

assessee vis-a-vis the same Canara Bank, the DCIT is

not competent to initiate proceeding for assessment

under said provision again by issuing Notice dated

30.06.2025 subsequently.

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 26 of 31

Conclusion:

7. Before concluding it deserves to be stated that it is well

established that the material on which the Assessing

Officer forms his opinion must not be the same material

which had been considered at the time of the initial

assessment, as in that case, the proceedings under

Section 147 of the IT Act would amount to reviewing the

Assessment Order merely on a change of opinion, which

is not permissible.

7.1. It is also well settled principle in the context of

assessment undertaken under Section 147 that whilst it

is not necessary for the Assessing Officer to arrive at a

firm conclusion that the assessee’s income for the

relevant Assessment Year has escaped assessment,

which is to be drawn during the assessment

proceedings, the Assessing Officer must have “reasons to

believe” based on tangible material that has nexus with

the belief that income indeed did escape assessment.

Concluded and closed assessments cannot be reopened

merely on suspicion or ipse dixit of the Assessing Officer.

7.2. It is well settled that a notice under Section 148 of the

Act could not be issued on mere suspicion. In order to

form opinion, the Assessing Officer has to have reasons

to believe, and it is necessary for the authority

concerned to examine the information and satisfy

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 27 of 31

himself regarding the same. It is, thus, stated in Neelima

Srivastava Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 8 SCR 167

as follows:

“Thus, it is very well settled that it is not permissible for

the parties to re-open the concluded judgments of the

Court as the same may not only tantamount to an abuse

of the process of the Court but would have far reaching

adverse effect on the administration of justice.”

8. Factual position remained uncontroverted as noticed

hereinabove transpires that the ITO, Ward 1(1), Cuttack

proceeded with the assessment under Section 147 read

with Section 144 passed Assessment Order dated

30.03.2023 attaching Computation Sheet thereto

(Annexure-10) in connection with Notice issued under

Section 148 along with Order under Section 148A(b)

with respect to Assessment Year 2019-20 in the context

of deposits made in the Canara Bank depicting PAN-1;

whereas the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack sought to proceed

with assessment against the petitioner stating the self-

same reason in relation to deposits made in Canara

Bank as against PAN-1 for the said Assessment Year

vide Notice dated 30.06.2025 issued under Section 148

(Annexure-13) read with Order dated 24.06.2025 passed

under Section 148(3) of the IT Act (Annexure-2). It is also

not denied by the learned Senior Standing Counsel that

the ITO had taken into consideration the explanation of

the petitioner that it has been filing returns using PAN-

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 28 of 31

2, but not PAN-1, and accepting such fact on verification

of evidence and material on record, the ITO had reduced

the assessment to NIL for the relevant Assessment Year.

8.1. With the aforesaid backdrop of factual conspectus, at

this juncture it does need to be emphasised the following

enunciation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

rendered in Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Himanshu

Dewan and Sonali Dewan, (2023) 12 SCR 1118:

“31. No doubt, in Pawan Gupta Vrs. Experion Developers

Private Limited 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 788, this

Court had not exercised the power or jurisdiction

conferred by Article 136 of the Constitution of India,

but had exercised its appellate power, which would,

in terms of the ratio in Kunhayammed and Others

Vrs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000) 6 SCC 359

= (2000) 1 Suppl. SCR 538, becomes the final order

which is executable. Thus, the dismissal of the

appeal by this Court in the case of Pawan

Gupta (supra), had put a finality and an end to

the litigation in the said case. To this extent,

therefore, the application of the general

principle of res judicata would bar the party

from raising the plea once again. The order

passed by this Court, on the application of the

principle of judicial discipline, bars and

prevents any tribunal or parties from

canvassing or taking a view which would have

the effect of re-examination of the issues and

points determined in the case of Pawan Gupta

(supra) inter se the parties to the decision.

However, dismissal of the appeal would not operate

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 29 of 31

as res judicata in the case of the respondents

against the appellant as they were not parties to the

said case, and the proceedings initiated by Pawan

Gupta were fact specific and not in a representative

capacity”

9. With the above note, this Court is of the strong view that

the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack while passing Order dated

24.06.2025 under Section 148A(3) of the IT Act, though

recorded the fact to the effect that “On verification by this

office it is observed that the assessee M/s. Sanjay Kumar

Bijay Kumar is filing its returns using PAN: AATFS3658P

from Assessment Year 2007-08 onwards. However, the

assessee has used PAN: ABAFS4271L in bank accounts

maintained by it in Canara Bank during the Financial

Year 2018-19. It is pertinent to mention here that for

similar ground an Order under Section 147 read with

Section 144 passed by the ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack on

29.03.2023 computing total income of the assessee as

NIL.”, tempted to proceed with the assessment again by

issuing Notice under Section 148 on the pretext “to

protect the interest of revenue”. The reason so assigned

by the DCIT for initiation of proceeding for assessment

is, thus, found to be self-conflicting. This Court may

observe that a quasi judicial authority at a subsequent

stage should not sit over the view expressed on facts in

earlier assessment proceeding on the same subject

matter adjudicated upon by another quasi judicial

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 30 of 31

authority. Factual narration of the ITO, Ward 1(1),

Cuttack clearly spelt out that the petitioner has been

filing returns using PAN: AATFS3658P, but not PAN:

ABAFS4271L.

10. In view of the analysis of undisputed facts and taking

note of submissions of the counsel appearing for

respective parties, this Court finds force in the

submission of Sri Pranaya Kishore Harichandan, learned

Advocate that the petitioner cannot be subjected to

assessment under Section 147 of the IT Act again. Ergo,

the Order dated 24.06.2025 passed under Section 148(3)

of the IT Act by the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Cuttack

(Annexure-2) is quashed and set aside. As a

consequence thereto, not only Notice dated 30.06.2025

issued by the said DCIT invoking power under Section

148 to proceed with assessment under Section 147

(Annexure-13) is set aside, but also the intimation dated

25.07.2025 to complete the assessment in terms of

procedure laid down in Section 144B of the IT Act

(Annexure-14).

11. It is made clear that as this Court has considered the

arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

parties with respect to subsequent proceeding for

assessment initiated by the DCIT and shown indulgence

in such proceeding, it is not felt expedient to decide

WP(C) No.28067 of 2025 Page 31 of 31

other grounds available in the writ petition. However,

question of law, if any, arises on the facts is left open.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and pending

Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of, but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as

to costs.

I agree.

(HARISH TANDON) (MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)

CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

The 24

th February, 2026//Aswini/Laxmikant