Principal Commissioner Of Income vs Smt. Ritanjali Khatai
2023 Latest Caselaw 7574 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                      ITA No.61 of 2022
                                    (Through Hybrid mode)

            Principal Commissioner of Income         ....                      Petitioner
            tax(Central)
                                               Mr. Radheyshyam Chimanka, Advocate
                                                      (Senior Standing Counsel, I.T.)
                                                        Mr. Avinash Kedia, Advocate
                                                       (Junior Standing Counsel, I.T.)

                                               -versus-
            Smt. Ritanjali Khatai                    ....                  Opposite Party


                                                          Mr. Chitrasen Parida, Advocate

            CORAM:
            JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
            JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
                                          ORDER

13.07.2023

Order No. 1. Mr. Chimanka, learned advocate, Senior Standing Counsel appear

03. on behalf of appellant/revenue. He submits, the Income Tax Appellate

Tribunal (ITAT), Cuttack Bench set aside the assessment on erroneous

view taken that the prior approvals had been granted without application

of mind.

2. Mr. Parida, learned advocate appears on behalf of

respondent(assessee) and submits, the appeal is covered by judgment

dated 28th June, 2023, passed by this Bench in ITA no.22 of 2020

// 2 //

(Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Dilip Construction

Pvt. Ltd.). He submits, we had relied on judgment dated 15th March,

2023 of co-ordinate Bench in ACIT Circle-1(2), BBSR vs. M/s.

Serajuddin and Co. Kolkata in ITA nos.39 to 45 of 2022.

3. Mr. Chimanka points out from our judgment dated 28th June,

2023 (supra) that he had urged non-applicability of Serajuddin and Co.

Kolkata but we had not accepted his argument.

4. The appeal is covered by M/s. Dillip Construction (supra). In the

circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for admission of it.

5. The appeal is dismissed.

( Arindam Sinha ) Judge

( S. K. Mishra ) Judge Prasant

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-Jul-2023 18:05:17