TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 1170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... primarily on the ground that no punishment has been imposed on the respondents. What appears to have weighed in the mind of the Registry is with regard to the scope of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1971 Act") and in the understanding of the Registry, an appeal is maintainable under Section 19 of the 1971 Act, only if there is an order of punishment passed by the learned Single Bench and in the absence of an order of punishment, the intra-court appeal is not maintainable. 3.We have elaborately heard Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4.A brief prelude of the factual position would be necessary, before we examine the correctness of the stand taken by the Registry as regards the maintainability of this appeal. The appellant filed the writ petition in W.P.No.3929 of 2014 to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 15.01.2014, under Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the I.T.Act") rejecting the petition filed by the appellant to compound the offence fra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accounts to disprove the stand taken by the Department. Thus, considering the nature of the offence and the quantum of income involved, the first respondent held that it is not a fit case for compounding the offence committed and the appellant's case will fall under para 3, 4.4(b), 4.4(c) and 4.4(g) of the circular dated 16.05.2008 and therefore, the petition deserves to be rejected. 6.The learned Writ Court, after taking note of the submissions on either side, observed that the objection of the respondent-Department is that the order passed by the Tribunal, reducing the quantum of penalty, has been challenged by the Department before this Court by filing a tax case appeal and this cannot be a reason to deny the benefit of Section 279(1-A) of the I.T.Act to the appellant. The reliance placed on the observations made by the Court in Crl.O.P.No.9065 of 2011, dated 28.02.2019 in a petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the criminal complaint, the Court held that the observation made in paragraph 19 of the said order dated 28.02.2019, is per incuriam and the observation made therein is not the proper appraisal and cannot be relied on. In this regard,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstant case establishes major frauds in so far as funds have gone out of the country and if not for the information obtained, the monies would have remained untaxed. (c) the assessee has neither produced the documents nor the account copy to disprove the contentions of the department. The attitude of the assessee was of total non-cooperation in the entire proceedings before the Assessing Officer on this issue." An annexure to the above order contains the reasons as to why the application was rejected, which forms part and parcel of the order dated 06.11.2019 and requires to be read along with the said order. 9.The appellant did not challenge the said order dated 06.11.2019, by filing a writ petition as was done by him in the earlier round, but chose to file Cont.P.No.2079 of 2019 stating that the first respondent wilfully neglected the directions issued by the learned Writ Court in its order dated 28.02.2019, and the order amounts to interference with the administration of justice and the respondents are liable to be punished for contempt. The contempt petition was heard by the Court and by order dated 31.01.2020, the Court found that there is no merit in the contemp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en kept under abeyance. In this background, it can only be said that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 279 (1A) of the Act and the mere challenge to the order reducing the penalty may not suffice to deny such a benefit. In view of these subsequent developments, there cannot now be any impediment on the part of the Department to compound the offences under Sections 276C and 277 of the Act." 32.Therefore, I do not find any merits in the present Contempt Petition." 10.The appellant is aggrieved by the aforementioned finding rendered by the Court holding that there is no merit in the present contempt petition. The endeavour of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is to convince this Court that the intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable and in this regard, placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) vs. S.C.Sekar & Ors. [(2009) 2 SCC 784]. The learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 43 of the judgment wherein, the Court quoted with approval the decision of the Calcutta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at there is no merit in the contempt petition and in order to maintain an appeal under Section 19 of the 1971 Act, the party on whom a punishment has been imposed alone could have approached the Court. In the instant case, the appellant was the petitioner in the contempt petition and he sought for punishing the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order in the writ petition. The learned Contempt Court found that there is no violation, rather the portions of the order passed in the writ petitions, which were heavily relied on by the appellant, were held to be observations made by the learned Writ Court. In such circumstances, we need to examine as to the role of the appellant in a contempt proceedings. This aspect has been vividly brought out in the decision in Om Prakash Jaiswal (supra) and the following paragraphs would be relevant:- "17.The jurisdiction to punish for contempt is summary but the consequences are serious. That is why the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings in contempt as also the jurisdiction to punish for contempt in spite of a case of contempt having been made out are both discretionary with the Court. Contempt generally and criminal contempt cert....