2022 (9) TMI 1605 - HC - Income Tax

Tax Assessment Notices Quashed for Non-Compliance; Officer Exceeded Jurisdiction; Contempt Charges Considered.

Prashant Chandra Versus Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Range 2

The HC quashed assessment notices for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14, deeming them non-compliant with the Income-tax Act. The court found the Assessing ... Contempt of court - Disobedience of the order by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) - Jurisdictional error in assessing the applicant at Lucknow instead of New Delhi Petitioner tendered his reply that he had already filed his return through e-filing at New Delhi as he has shifted his place of principle business from Lucknow to New Delhi. As notice has already been quashed consequential orders, if any, are also quashed, a notice was issued by the Income-tax Department wherein the petitioner to furnished information in regard to assessment year 2013-14 and further an order was passed by giving final opportunity to file objections/ submissions failing which necessary inference will be drawn accordingly. HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered opinion that the preliminary objection raised by opposite party is misconceived as this Court while deciding the issue has quashed the consequential orders, if any. Notice issued for the assessment year 2013-14 has also been dealt with by this Court in the judgment and order and the same has been quashed. Let Harish Gidwani, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Lucknow may appear in person for framing of charge that why the contempt proceedings may not be initiated against him for willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment and order [2015 (3) TMI 1229 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. List this petition on 17.10.2022. In the meantime, learned counsel for the opposite party will file reply to the supplementary affidavit. Issues:Contempt of court for alleged disobedience of a court order dated 31.3.2015 regarding assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14.Detailed Analysis:The contempt application before the High Court alleged contempt of court of the order dated 31.3.2015, which had quashed an impugned notice dated 11.9.2013 for the assessment year 2012-13. The court noted that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer was not in conformity with the requirements prescribed in Section 142 and 143 of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner had objected to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and the court found that the authority had proceeded ex parte and dispatched a demand without following proper procedures. The court emphasized the importance of transparency and fairness in state actions and held that the authority had exceeded its jurisdiction, rendering the entire proceedings illegal and in violation of the Income-tax Act.In the subsequent assessment year 2013-14, a notice was issued by the Income-tax Department, and the petitioner was given an opportunity to file objections. The court, in its judgment and order dated 31.3.2015, had quashed the notice for this assessment year as well, along with any consequential orders. The petitioner's counsel argued that the subsequent year's notice should not have been issued from Lucknow after the quashing of the earlier notice for the assessment year 2012-13. The counsel contended that the entire proceeding was vitiated in law once the court examined the change of address and jurisdiction for issuing the assessment notice.The opposing counsel argued that the contempt application was not maintainable for the assessment year 2013-14 as the court had only dealt with the assessment year 2012-13 in its previous judgment. However, the court held that the preliminary objection was misconceived, as it had quashed any consequential orders in its earlier judgment, including those related to the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the notice issued for the assessment year 2013-14 was also quashed by the court in its previous judgment.As a result, the court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Lucknow, to appear in person for framing charges regarding why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment and order dated 31.3.2015. The petition was listed for further proceedings, and the opposite party was directed to file a reply to the supplementary affidavit.