2017 (1) TMI 1431 - HC - Income Tax

Court Dismisses Various Irrelevant Applications, Emphasizes Anti-Frivolous Litigation Stance

Court On Its Own Motion Versus Rakesh Kumar Gupta

The court dismissed numerous applications filed by the respondent, including intervention in income tax appeals, requests for affidavits and documents, ... Contempt proceedings - direction to the Income Tax Appellate and Writ Branch of this court to supply documents relating to the aforenoticed income tax appeals and the writ petition to this court not entitled as the respondent is not a party to those matters and is not entitled to this record. The applicant has prayed for permission to record the hearings in court by phone, camera/electronic device. Such a prayer is completely unwarranted. This application is misconceived and is dismissed as such. No direction can be issued in the present case for payment of any reward to the respondent in these proceedings. This application is again hopelessly misconceived and is dismissed with costs of ₹ 2,500/- which shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from today. Proof of deposit of costs shall be filed in the present proceedings. As on the last date of hearing, in view of the submissions made by the applicant in paras 3 and 4 noted above, we had queried the applicant if we could give him a lawyer of ability from the panel constituted by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. The respondent was emphatic that he shall choose a lawyer but the lawyer would be permitted to make only legal submissions and that he would make factual submissions himself. This in fact manifests that the submission by the respondent that he is unable to plead legal submissions is not correct. We had noted this fact in our order dated 11th January, 2017. We have also noted the intemperate conduct of the respondent no.1 in our order dated 11th January, 2017. Issues Involved:1. Intervention and allegations against counsel for the revenue.2. Applications filed by the respondent in contempt proceedings.3. Misconduct and obstruction during court hearings.4. Requests for affidavits and documents.5. Requests for early disposal and recording of hearings.6. Allegations against taxpayers and the Income Tax Department.7. Requests for interim rewards and conversion of court records.8. Attendance of Income Tax Department representatives.9. Financial constraints and legal representation.10. Requests for ITAT records.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Intervention and Allegations Against Counsel for the Revenue:The respondent, who has no connection with the pending income tax appeals and writ petition, filed an intervention application (CM No.5779/2008) in ITA 1428/2006, alleging misconduct by the counsel for the revenue. The court dismissed this application on January 15, 2005. Subsequent similar allegations led to contempt proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.2. Applications Filed by the Respondent in Contempt Proceedings:The respondent filed 11 applications in the contempt proceedings, which were heard and disposed of by the court. The applications included requests for affidavits, documents, early disposal, recording of hearings, and other miscellaneous prayers.3. Misconduct and Obstruction During Court Hearings:During the hearing on November 16, 2016, the respondent repeatedly intervened and obstructed the court from passing orders, alleging that he was not being heard. The court noted his protracted arguments and reserved orders.4. Requests for Affidavits and Documents:- Crl.M.A.No.12118/2015: The respondent sought an affidavit from Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal regarding facts in ITA 1428/2016. The court dismissed this application as misdirected, imposing costs of Rs. 2,500.- Crl.M.A.No.12119/2015: The respondent sought an affidavit from Mr. Simran Mehta regarding certain documents. The court dismissed this application as irrelevant to the present proceedings, with costs of Rs. 2,500.- Crl.M.A.No.12120/2015: The respondent requested documents from the Income Tax Appellate and Writ Branch. The court dismissed this application, stating the respondent is not entitled to the records, with costs of Rs. 2,500.5. Requests for Early Disposal and Recording of Hearings:- Crl.M.A.No.18534/2015: The respondent sought early disposal of three applications. The court disposed of this application as infructuous.- Crl.M.A.No.7868/2016: The respondent requested permission to record hearings using electronic devices. The court dismissed this application as unwarranted.6. Allegations Against Taxpayers and the Income Tax Department:- Crl.M.A.No.7869/2016: The respondent alleged that taxpayers were hiding facts and the Income Tax Department was presenting weak cases. The court dismissed this application, stating it was concerned only with the contempt proceedings, with costs of Rs. 2,500.- Crl.M.A.No.7870/2016: The respondent sought an interim reward of Rs. 10 Crore for assisting the Tax Department. The court dismissed this application as hopelessly misconceived, with costs of Rs. 2,500.7. Requests for Interim Rewards and Conversion of Court Records:- Crl.M.A.No.17316/2016: The respondent requested the conversion of information from a DVD to paper form or the conversion of the court to an E-Court. The court dismissed this application, stating no such direction was necessary.8. Attendance of Income Tax Department Representatives:- Crl.M.A.No.17317/2016: The respondent sought directions for the Tax Department to depute a representative. The court dismissed this prayer as misconceived, with costs of Rs. 2,500.9. Financial Constraints and Legal Representation:- Crl.M.A.No.17318/2016: The respondent cited financial constraints and lack of legal representation. The court noted the respondent's refusal to accept a lawyer from the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee and dismissed the application as infructuous.10. Requests for ITAT Records:- Crl.M.A.No.17319/2016: The respondent requested ITAT records and appeals related to AAA Portfolio P Ltd. The court dismissed this application as misdirected, with costs of Rs. 2,500.Conclusion:The court comprehensively addressed each application filed by the respondent, dismissing them primarily on grounds of irrelevance, misdirection, and lack of entitlement. Costs were imposed on the respondent for most dismissed applications, emphasizing the court's stance against frivolous litigation and obstruction of justice.