AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 694
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been filed alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.9525 (MB) of 2013 whereby the following direction was issued: "A perusal of Annexure SA-3 annexed with the supplementary affidavit dated 31.3.2015 shows that in response to the notice dated 3.11.2014, the petitioner preferred written objection to the Assessing Officer bringing to his notice the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition and also apprising him that Section 127 was not even remotely attracted. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the opposite party No.2 to have waited for the outcome of the writ petition, but he proceeded with the matter which shows prejudicial and impartial attitude of the authority. It may be noted that transparency and fairness is the essence of the state action. Therefore, the authorities are expected to proceed in disciplined manner without creating any doubt in the mind of the assessees. As averred above, it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to have referred the question of jurisdiction to the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner as the case may be under sub-section (2) of Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r can only be assessed by the assessing authority at New Delhi. She next submitted that the writ petition had been filed when notices for a manual scrutiny for the assessment year 2012- 13 had been received by the applicant and the assessing officer at Lucknow that is the respondent-contemnor did not pay any heed to the objection of jurisdiction taken by the applicant and proceeded with the assessment proceedings threaten to complete the same by 30.03.2015. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that as per the official records of the income tax also the applicant is an assessee of income tax at New Delhi and therefore, the computer-generated notice records the New Delhi address of the assessee. She next submitted that scoring out the New Delhi address and sending the notice at Lucknow address was an act of fraud. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the opposite party-contemnor proceeded with the assessment despite the filing of the writ petition and passed an order of assessment which was also assailed by amending the writ petition and the writ Court quashed the order of assessment. Despite the said order having been quashed, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y submitted that as the Department had taken decision to file a special leave petition against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015, the opposite party did not commit any illegality in not complying with the order dated 31.03.2015. He pointed out that in paragraph 23 of the counter affidavit, this aspect had clearly been mentioned and only because the special leave petition was not filed would not mean that the opposite party had willfully and deliberately violated the order dated 31.03.2015. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that the order dated 31.03.2015 had been passed in the writ petition filed by the applicant assailing the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 and as such, the order dated 31.03.2015 would have no application in the succeeding financial year 2013-14. He also pointed out that earlier in respect of the assessment year 2011-12 the applicant had preferred writ petition No.1848 of 2014 which had been dismissed vide an order dated 27.03.2014. This Court in the aforesaid writ petition has held that main place of profession of the applicant would be at Lucknow for the assessment year 2011-12 and accordingly, the assessing offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 14. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that new notice issued was also valid as per para-6 of the AST Instruction no.115 of Directorate of Income Tax, Systems, New Delhi circulated vide letter F.No.DIT(S)-II/CASS/2014 dated 02.08.2013 which categorically says that in all cases under compulsory scrutiny, notice under Section 143(2) will be generated from the system only by the officer having PAN in his/ her jurisdiction. 15. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that in order to get the jurisdiction changed, an order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by the competent authority is required which was not complied with by the applicant and as the objections were filed beyond 30 days, the same was not considered by this Court in writ petition No.1848 (MB) of 2014 and the same was dismissed and it has been denied that for the assessment year 2011-12 the applicant was assessed at New Delhi. 16. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that after he passing of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015, the opposite party has never proceeded against the applicant for the assessment year 2012-13 and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assed the order on 31.03.2015. The demand generated pursuant to the assessment order was only after 31.03.2015 and had been generated by the opposite party who had assessed the applicant. The opposite party, therefore, knowing that judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 had been passed generated the demand. He, thus, acted in contempt of the judgment and order dated 31.3.2015. 19. The submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the writ Court vide the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 had decided the question of jurisdiction and not of any particular assessment year and also that each year assessment being different has no application in cases where the jurisdiction prima facie appears to be correct as this Court finds that the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 is not confined to any particular assessment year and has generally recorded that the income tax authority at Lucknow does not have jurisdiction over the applicant who is assessed at New Delhi. This Court, is therefore, of the prima facie view that the opposite party is guilty of contempt of the orders dated 31.03.2015 passed by the writ Court and the opposite party does not the jurisdiction or au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applicant next submitted that as after change of business, for assessment year 2011-12 an assessment was made at Lucknow, the same was challenged but the writ petition was dismissed as by the time the assessment was made, the official records had not been corrected incorporating the place of business of the applicant as New Delhi. The Income Tax Department having recorded the change in the PAN database, an application for review was preferred which is pending disposal before this Hon'ble Court. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that a manual notice for scrutiny in respect of the returns of income fired for the assessment for the assessment year 2011-12 was issued by the respondent on 13.09.2013. The address in the official communication which was recorded as that of New Delhi, but is cut out by hand and replaced by the Lucknow address. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the applicant against the manual scrutiny notice for the assessment year 2011-12 was made a representation informing the opposite party-contemnor that he did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment of the applicant on account of the place of business having....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e issuance of the notice was extraneous and brazenly contemptuous. 12. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that after the submission of the response dated 15.07.2015 the opposite party-contemnor maintained a cryptic silence and on 15.03.2016 issued another manually prepared notice and not a notice taken out from the official records in which reference to the notice dated 24.06.2015 was made but the address of the applicant was altered by the opposite party-contemnor from New Delhi to that of Lucknow, contrary to the official records and against the same PAN number. Seven day's time was granted by him to respond to the notice issued without jurisdiction and in violation of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015. 13. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that opposite party-contemnor obstinately responded that he was not bound by orders passed by the High Court and he will get it set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a SLP is being filed. This assertion is contained in paragraph 7 of the instant contempt application preferred on 28.03.2016. Response has been given in paragraph 23 of the opposite party's counter affidavit dated 18.5.2016 containing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 18. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that after several hearings in the present contempt petition, it was found that the action of the opposite party-contemnor in violating the judgment and order dated 31.05.2015 was deliberate and willful, charges were framed in the order dated 1.11.2023. She next submitted that an affidavit has been filed in response to the charges framed against the opposite party-contemnor and the same submissions have been repeated as were made on several hearings before the framing of the charge. 19. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that emphasis was laid that the PAN database indicated the address of the applicant as that of Lucknow and as such the opposite party-contemnor had selected the applicant's case for scrutiny. This is factually incorrect. The address in the database had been changed. 20. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that notice issued by the opposite party-contemnor himself on 24.06.2015 to the applicant is at his Delhi address calling for information for scrutiny pertaining to the return filed at New Delhi for assessment year 2013-14 and with meticulous cleverness reference has been ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... submitted that the aforesaid contempt petition was filed in impleading the deponent in respect of the alleged contempt committed by him while he was posted as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2), Lucknow. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that the deponent joined the post of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow on 9.10.2014 and remained posted there till 09.06.2016 only. Thereafter, he was transferred from the said post and was posted as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit), Lucknow and was having no interference or authority regarding the work of his earlier post since he has already handed over the charge of DCIT(2), Lucknow. Further the applicant after serving with the Income Tax Department on different posts has ultimately superannuated from the Income Tax Department on 30.06.2023. 25. In regard to charge no.1, learned counsel for the opposite party while denying the charge so framed submitted that though the notice dated 20.09.2014 and 15.10.2014 u/s 143(2) were issued to the applicant for the assessment year 2013-14 much prior to the passing of the judgment dated 31.03.2015, but neither the applicant has made any challenge, nor raised any grievance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter taking charge of the office of Deputy Commissioner, Range-2, Lucknow on 9.10.2014 issued notice under Section 143(2) in all cases as required by the statute. In the case of the applicant, notice u/s 143(2) for assessment year 2013-14 was issued by the undersigned on 15.10.2014 subsequent to the first notice issued on 20.09.2014 by his predecessor to which nobody attended which is apparent from the order sheet and the order itself. It is blatantly wrong that compliance was made on 26.09.2014 (six days after the date of notice). 29. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that no objection to the jurisdiction was filed within 30 days of the issue of notice u/s 143(2) dated 20.9.2014. However, the Assessing Officer/ deponent in good faith and gesture referred the matter to the Commissioner of Income Tax vide letter dated 5.1.2015 narrating the non-corporation of the applicant. It is wrongly claimed by the applicant that the matter was never referred to the Commissioner of Income Tax which was further transmitted to the Board. In view of this letter and subsequent letters written by his successor the case of the applicant was transferred u/s 127(2) vide order dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....31.03.2016 in view of Section 153 of the I.T. Act, 1961 which he did and hence, has not in any manner disobeyed or violated the judgment of the Hon'ble Court. 32. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that the respondent joined the office of DCIT, Range 2, Lucknow on 9.10.2014 and was functioning in accordance with the jurisdiction as conferred by the Central Board of Direct Taxes/ Higher Authorities in accordance with the provisions of Section 120(1) of Income Tax Act. The respondent does not have any power/ authority to transfer the jurisdiction of the case of the applicant on his own and has to perform the function of the Assessing Officer and make assessment as per the provisions of the Act within time frame as provided under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act. Further, as the limitation for passing of the order was expiring on 31.03.2016 and since there was no direction or order from higher authorities or any competent court either for transferring the jurisdiction of the applicant or directing the deponent/ respondent to not to pass final assessment order in the case of the applicant for assessment year 2013- 14, there was no alternative left with the depone....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e opposite party next submitted that the deponent has neither disobeyed nor violated much less deliberately and willfully violated, the judgment dated 31.03.2015 passed by this Hon'ble Court in any manner and thus, the charge so framed by this Hon'ble Court is liable to be dropped against the deponent. 38. In regard to charge no.III, learned counsel for the opposite party while denying the charge so framed, submitted that though the assessment order for assessment year 2012-13 in pursuance to initial notice dated 11.09.2013 was passed by the deponent on 25.03.2015 wherein a demand for Rs. 51 lacs was raised through demand notice dated 25.03.2015. However, after the judgment of this Court dated 31.03.2015, the Court quashed the notice dated 11.09.2013 and consequential proceedings for assessment year 2012-13. The said demand was never pressed against the applicant and no fresh notice of demand was issued to the applicant after the judgment of this Court, nor was the demand adjusted from the refund for any subsequent assessment years. 39. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that the deponent was transferred from the office of DCIT Range-II, Lucknow to DCIT, Lu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice maintaining the portal and relevant document in this regard was also placed on record with his affidavit dated 5.12.2022. 43. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that the deponent was a responsible officer of the Government and while performing his duties and responsibilities has retired from the services of the Government on 30.6.20213. The deponent has the highest regard for the order of this Court. 44. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the opposite parties relied upon following judgments: (i) Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran reported in (2014)3 SCC 373 (ii) B.K. Kar v. The Chief Justice and His Companion Judges reported AIR 1961 SC367 (iii) Mrityunjoy Das and other v. Hasibur Rahaman and others reported in 2002(3)SCC 739 (iv) Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. Unite India Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2010)12 SCC 770 (v) Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj and others reported in 2014(16) SCC 204 (vi) Avishek Raja and others v. Sanjay Gupta reported in (2017)8 SCC 435 (vii) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S I-Ven Interactive Ltd., Mumbai (Civil Appeal No.813....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be drawn from circumstance already discussed is that both of them must have met an unnatural death. Prima facie, it would be an offence of murder. Who is individually or collectively the perpetrator of the crime or is responsible for their disappearance will have to be determined by a proper, thorough and responsible police investigation. It is not necessary to start casting a doubt on anyone or any particular person. But prima facie there is material on record to reach an affirmative conclusion that both Shri C. Daniel and Shri C. Paul are not alive and have met an unnatural death. And the Union of India cannot disown the responsibility in this behalf. If this inference is permissible which we consider reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the Registrar (Judicial) shall forward all the papers of the case accompanied by a writ of mandamus to the Superintendent of Police, Ukhrul, Manipur State to be treated as information of a cognizable offence and to commence investigation as prescribed by the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ii) T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (102) through the Amicus Curiae (supra): 5. Disobedie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals. In England the idea of legal equality, or the universal subjection of all classes to one law administered by the ordinary courts, has been pushed to its utmost limit. With us every official, from Prime Minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done with legal justification as any other citizen. The reports abound with cases in which officials have been brought before the courts, and made, in their personal capacity, liable to punishment, or to the payment of damages, for acts done in their official character but in excess of their lawful authority. A colonial governor, a secretary of State, a military officer, and all subordinates, though carrying out the commands of their official superiors, are as responsible for any act which the law does not authorize as is a private and unofficial person. (See Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 10th Edn. 1965, pp. 193-194). 23. Respect should always be shown to the Court. If any party is aggrieved by the order which is in its opinion is w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... does not mean that it is not open to the Court, as a matter of law to make a finding of contempt against any official of the Government say Home Secretary or a Minister. 34. While contempt proceedings usually have these characteristics and contempt proceedings against a Government department or a minister in an official capacity would not be either personal or punitive (it would clearly not be appropriate to fine or sequest the assets of the Crown or a Government department or an officer of the Crown acting in his official capacity), this does not mean that a finding of contempt against a Government department or minister would be pointless. The very fact of making such a finding would vindicate the requirements of justice. In addition an order for costs could be made to underline the significance of a contempt. A purpose of the court's powers to make findings of contempt is to ensure the orders of the court are obeyed. This jurisdiction is required to be co-extensive with the courts' jurisdiction to make the orders which need the protection which the jurisdiction to make findings of contempt provides. In civil proceedings the court can now make orders (other than injunct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court (or an undertaking given to a Court); (ii) there must be disobedience to such judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court (or breach of undertaking given to a Court); and (iii) such disobedience of judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a Court (or breach of undertaking) must be wilful. 59. Section 12 provides punishment for contempt of Court. The relevant part of the provision reads thus; "12 - Punishment for contempt of court--(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. Explanation.--An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "There is an element of public policy in punishing civil contempt, since the administration of justice would be undermined if the order of any court of law could be disregarded with impunity." 63. In Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 21, this Court held that the Contempt of Courts Act has been introduced in the statute-book for securing confidence of people in the administration of justice. If an order passed by a competent Court is clear and unambiguous and not capable of more than one interpretation, disobedience or breach of such order would amount to contempt of Court. There can be no laxity in such a situation because otherwise the Court orders would become the subject of mockery. Misunderstanding or own understanding of the Court's order would not be a permissible defence. (iv) Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari (supra): 116. We may summarise our final conclusion as under: (i) We hold that an assurance in the form of an undertaking given by a counsel/ advocate on behalf of his client to the court; the wilful breach or disobedience of the same would amount to "civil contempt" as defined under Section 2(b) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts stated there- The in. No doubt, it was accompanied by a telegram and even though it was addressed to a pleader there is nothing to indicate that he was authorised to appear for the complainant. Further it is not possible to say as to the capacity of the sender. Had the telegram been received from the court or from an advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant before the High Court and addressed either to the court or pleader for the complainant different considerations would have arisen and it may have been possible to take the view that the information contained therein had the stamp of authenticity. Of course, we do not want to lay it down here as law that every telegram purporting to be signed by an advocate or a pleader is per se guarantee of the truth of the facts stated therein and also of the fact that it was actually sent by the person whose name it bears. In order to assure the Court about these matters an affidavit from the party would be necessary. Upon the materials before us we are satisfied that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was entitled to ignore the telegram as well as the application. We, therefore, hold that his refusal to act on the telegram did not amoun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ies. There must be some further evidence to incriminate him. Once some evidence is given, then his lies can be thrown into the scale against him. But there must be some other evidence. Where there are two equally consistent possibilities open to the Court, it is not right to hold that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In this context, the observations of the Calcutta High Court in Archana Guha v. Ranjit Guha Neogi (1989 (II) CHN 252) in which one of us was a party (Banerjee,J.) seem to be rather apposite and we do lend credence to the same and thus record our concurrence therewith. In The Aligarh Municipal Board and Others v. Ekka tonga Mazdoor Union and Others 970 (III) SCC 98), this Court in no uncertain term stated that in order to bring home a charge of contempt of court for disobeying orders of Courts, those who assert that the alleged contemners had knowledge of the order must prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt. This Court went on to observe that in case of doubt, the benefit ought to go to the person charged. In a similar vein in V.G. Nigam and others V. Kedar Nath Gupta and another (1992 (4) SCC 697), this Court stated that it would be ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the existence of only the following preconditions before a person can be held to have committed civil contempt: "(i) There must be a judgment or order or decree or direction or writ or other process of a court; or (ii) The judgment etc. must be of the court and undertaking must have been given to a court; (iii) There must be a disobedience to such judgment, etc. or breach of such undertaking; (iv) The disobedience or breach, as the case may be, must be wilful." Hence, it would not be right to contend that even though the learned Single Judge might have found material which persuaded him to form an opinion that a contempt has been committed, yet the learned Judge had no authority or jurisdiction to initiate a proceeding for contempt against the plerson who indulged in such action. Thus we find no substance in the plea which has been raised on behalf of the appellant on this court." 13. This now leads us to the next question and a more relevant one, as to whether a proceeding for contempt initiated against the appellant can be held to be sustainable merely on speculation, assumption and inference drawn from facts and circumstance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....propriate to take into consideration the settled legal position as reflected in the judgment and order delivered in the matter of Ahmad Ali Vs. Supdt., District Jail, AIR 1987 SC 1491 : Supp. SCC 556 that mere unintentional disobedience is not enough to hold anyone guilty of contempt and although, disobedience might have been established, absence of wilful disobedience on the part of the contemnor, will not hold him guilty unless the contempt involves a degree of fault or misconduct. Thus, accidental or unintentional disobedience is not sufficient to justify one for holding guilty of contempt. It is further relevant to bear in mind the settled law on the law of contempt that casual or accidental or unintentional acts of disobedience under the circumstances which negate any suggestion of contumacy, would amount to a contempt in theory only and does not render the contemnor liable to punishment and this was the view expressed also in cases reported in AIR 1954 Patna 513, State of Bihar Vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari and AIR 1957 Patna 528, N. Bakshi Vs. O.K Ghosh. v) Ram Kishan (supra):- 9. Contempt jurisdiction conferred onto the law courts power to punish an of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. The effect and purport of the order is to be taken into consideration and the same must be read in its entirety. Therefore, the element of willingness is an indispensable requirement to bring home the charge within the meaning of the Act. vi) Avishek Raja and others (supra):- 19. The contours of power of the Court so far as commission of civil contempt is concerned have been elaborated upon in a number of pronouncements of this Court. Illustratively, reference may be made to the following observations in the case of Kapildeo Prasad Sah vs. State of Bihar "For holding the respondents to have committed contempt, civil contempt at that, it has to be shown that there has been wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court. Power to punish for contempt is to be resorted to when there is clear violation of the Court's order. Since notice of contempt and punishment for contempt is of far reaching consequence and these powers should be invoked only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the court's order has been made out. Whether disobedience is wil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntempt has been alleged even the said new/ altered facts do not permit an adjudication in consonance with the established principles of exercise of contempt jurisdiction so as to enable the Court to come to a conclusion that any of the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court..." (Emphassis is supplied by us) 21. Similarly, in Sudhir Vasudeva vs. George Ravishekaran9 the issue has been dealt with in a manner which may be of relevance to the present case. Para 19 of the report is as follows. "The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self-determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ange in the name of the company and/or any change in the registered office or the corporate office and the same has to be intimated to the Registrar of Companies in the prescribed format (Form 18) and after completing with the said requirement, the assessee is required to approach the Department with the copy of the said document and the assessee is also required to make an application for change of address in the departmental database of PAN, which in the present case the assessee has failed to do so. viii) In Re: P.C Sen v. Unknown(supra):- 5. Instead of making a frank statement before the Court, the Chief Minister was apparently advised to adopt grossly technical pleas. Counsel informed the Court that the Chief Minister did "not like to use any affidavit showing cause". Evidence was then led before the Court to prove that the offending speech was in fact broadcast by the Chief Minister on the All India Radio, Calcutta Station. After evidence was recorded in the Court about the speech broadcast by the Chief Minister he somewhat belatedly filed an affidavit on March 4, 1966, admitting that he had delivered the speech on the AH India Radio on the night of November....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cause similar to that of the petitioners". The learned Judge accordingly recorded that "the Chief Minister cannot wholly escape the charge of having committed contempt of Court", since "the speech was contumacious in the sense that it was likely to have baneful effects upon the petitioners" in Petition No. 369 of 1965 "their cause, and upon persons having a similar cause and as such was likely to interfere with the administration of justice by the Court." The learned Judge, however, observed that "the contemner Mr. Sen should be let off with an expression of disapproval of his conduct and in the hope that the sort of indiscretion will not be repeated" 8. The law relating to contempt of Court is well settled. Any act done or writing published which is calculated to bring a Court or a Judge into contempt, or to lower his authority, or to interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the Court, is a contempt of Court : R. v. Gray, [1900] 2 Q.B.D. 36 at p. 40. Contempt by speech or writing may be by scandalising the Court itself, or by abusing parties to actions, or by prejudicing mankind in favour of or against a party before the cause is heard. It is inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted power, That, however does not justify the court in commencing proceedings without due caution and reserve. But Banerjee, J., who must be conversant with local conditions was of the view that action of the Chief Minister was likely to interfere with the course of justice for it was likely to have "baneful effects" upon the petitioners their cause and upon persons having a similar cause, and sitting in appeal we do not think that we can hold that he took an erroneous view of his power or of the tendency of the speech, which hs has chisraeterified as having "baneful effects". Banerjee, J., has ultimately treated the contempt as technical for he has not imposed any substantive sentence, not even a warning. He has merely expressed his displeasure. The speech was ex facie calculated to interfere with the administration of justice. In the circumstances the order of Banerjee, J., observing that the Chief Minister had acted improperly and expressing disapproval of the action does not call for any interference by this Court. ix. Raza Textiles Ltd. (supra):- 6. It is settled that an assessment year is a self-contained assessment period and a decision in one assessment ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tral Board of Revenue. The Act does not "contemplate any other authority." We find that similar kind of provision is contained in sub-section (4) of Section 124. In this view of the matter, it is the Commissioner, or where the question is one relating to areas within the jurisdiction of different Commissioners concerned, or if they are not in agreement by the Board lies. It necessarily excludes any other court or authority. Complete machinery for determination of place of assessment or the authority for assessment is provided for under Section 124." xii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi:- 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the various pleas of the learned counsel for the parties. From the facts above, we find that the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act had been served upon the assessee on 18-11- 1995. The provisions of Sub section (3) of Section 124 of the Act are specific and clear that an assessee or any other person should have raised objection regarding jurisdiction within 30 days from the date of notice i.e. the service. In the present case, objection, if any, was raised only on 21-3-1996, which is much beyond the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings for commitment for contempt where there is a mere technical contempt. It is also evident from perusal of the judgments that an assessment year is a self-contained assessment period and a decision in one assessment year does not ordinarily operate as res judicata or estoppel in respect of the matter decided in another year. It is also evident that if the submission of the revenue on the account is to be accepted, then an order which is without jurisdiction could be bestowed with jurisdiction by passing an order of transfer with retrospective effect. It is also evident that the Apex Court has held thus under Section 64(3) the question of determination as to the place of assessment only arise if an objection is taken of assessment only arise if an objection is taken by the assessee and the Income Tax Officer has any doubts as to the matter. It is well settled that there is no place for equity in tax laws. Whether the assessee is under a factual impression or has no knowledge of the order of transfer in a particular case and if he is to raise any objection regarding jurisdiction, he should do so within 30 days and not beyond that. 48. Perusal of the material available on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gment and order dated 31.03.2015." 49. Learned counsel for the opposite while denying the aforesaid charges reiterated the same submissions as have been advanced at the time of framing of charges which have been quoted in paragraph 2 of this judgment. 50. The submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the writ Court vide the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 had decided the question of jurisdiction and not of any particular assessment year and also that each year assessment being different has no application in cases where the jurisdiction prima facie appears to be correct as this Court finds that the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 is not confined to any particular assessment year and has generally recorded that the Income Tax Authority at Lucknow does not have jurisdiction over the applicant who is assessed at Delhi. This Court is therefore of the view that the opposite party is guilty of contempt of the order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the writ Court and the opposite party does not have the jurisdiction or authority to interpret the order passed by the Court by putting words which are not contained in the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 appears....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....towards the order of the Court. 55. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, on several occasions while considering the willful disobedience of the order, repeatedly held that willful and deliberate contempt must be punished both by the imprisonment and fine as it is absolutely imperative to uphold the dignity and majesty of a court of law. 56. In view of the above, the ratio of judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite party is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case as in all the decisions a definite finding has been recorded that in case the commission of contempt is willful and deliberate, the contemnor must be punished to uphold the dignity and majesty of a court of law. 57. In the judgment rendered in the case of Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant, it has been held that on account of contempt no benefit can accrue to any beneficiary of the contempt. It has also been held that the apology tendered should not be accepted as a matter of course and the court is not bound to accept the same. The apology may be unconditional, unqualified and bonafide, still if the conduct ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ily mens rea is not required to be proved in a case of contempt but in the present case the violation is willful, deliberate and coupled with intention and motive to harass the applicant. 62. For the reasons given above, this Court finds the opposite party- Mr. Harish Gidwani, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Lucknow (now retired) to be guilty under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 63. On these facts, fine only would not meet the ends of justice because Mr. Harish Gidwani, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Lucknow (now retired) was a senior officer, who was the custodian of assessing of the applicant and had committed a grossly reprehensible act and in case he is not punished, it would send down a wrong signal to other officials of Income Tax Department that even such unbusiness like conduct invites only a warning or fine, as Courts are flooded with matters, where orders are passed. 64. Accordingly, a fine of Rs. 25,000/- along with simple imprisonment for a period of one week is awarded to the contemnor-Mr. Harish Gidwani, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Lucknow (now retired). In case of default, he would suffer one day's fu....