TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 694
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Section 124 of the Act and not doing so, this vitiated the further proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it 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 respondent-contemnor did not withdraw the demand which continued to be displayed on the income tax web port....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....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 officer had rightly exercised power under Section 142 of the Act. Learned counsel next submitted that every assessment year for the purpose ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 merely changing the principal place of profession or residential address in PAN does not automatically change the jurisdiction of the assessment officer. He next submitted that w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 authority to interpret the orders passed by this Court by putting in words which are not contained in the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 appears to be willful and deliberate. 20. Considering in totalit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 been transferred from Lucknow to New Delhi, where the return of income had been filed by the applicant. The Delhi address of the applicant had been duly incorporated in official records of the Income Tax Department. 8. Learned counsel for the applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued 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 a changed stand that a proposal for filing a special leave petition has been submitted duly recommended by the contempt authority before Supreme Court. No SLP was actually filed. The respondent contemnor has filed a false affidavit. 14. Learned counsel for the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 made only to the notice dated 16.03.2015 which is not an officially generated communication but a notice prepared by the opposite party-contemnor himself by replacing the Delhi address by the Lucknow address. 21. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the judgmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 against the said notice issued for the assessment year 2013-14 before this Hon'ble Court nor the Court has taken any cognizance in respect to the said notices which were for the assessment year 2013-14. Thus, the Hon'ble Court in its judgment dated 31.03.2015 was pleased not to consider or deal with either the no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 21.09.2016. In compliance to the order u/s 127(2) the then Assessing Officer transferred the case records along with other miscellaneous records to the officer having jurisdiction in Delhi. 30. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that under the taxation law each assessment year is considered as an indepe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th 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 deponent, but to pass the order which would have been otherwise barred by limitation on 31.03.2016. Therefore, the deponent has merely performed his duties conferred upon him by virtue of the provisions of the Income Tax Act and has neither disobeyed nor violated, much less deliberately and willfully violated the judgment dated 31.03.201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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, Lucknow in June, 2016 and was not at all related with the issuance of demand against the applicant or uploading it on web portal. He next submitted that the case of the applicant transferred u/s 127(2) vide order dated 21.09.2016. In compliance with the order u/s 127(2), the then Assessing Officer transferred the case records along with other misc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....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.8132 of 2019) (viii) In Re: P.C. Sen v. Unknown, AIR 1970 SC 1821. (ix) Raza Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 1989(178) ITR 496 (x) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lalit Kumar Bardia reported in ITA 127 of 2006. (xi) Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s All India Children Care & Education, IAPL 89 of 2003 (xii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi decided on 5 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. Disobedience of this Court's order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central pillar of the democratic State. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the Courts ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve 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 wrong or against rules or implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should approach the Court. This had been done and this Court after consideration had rejected the I.A. long before. 26. It is thus crystal clear that the applications of those eligible for grant of licenses were required to be sent to CEC, who was then required to submit a report to this Court. Thereafter, this Court would have decided on the question of entitlement for license. The procedure mandated by this Court was not followed. Instead of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 injunctions or for specific performance) against authorized Government departments or the Attorney General. On applications for judicial review orders can be made against ministers. In consequence such orders must be taken not to offend the theory that the Crown can supposedly do no wrong. Equally, if such orders are made and not obeyed, the body against whom the orders were made can be found guilty of contempt without offending that theory, which could be the only justifiable impediment against making a finding of contempt. 35. This is a case where not only right from the beginning attempt h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 the time being in force, no court shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in sub-section (1) for any Contempt either in respect of itself or of a court subordinate to it. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the court , if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison for such period not exceeding six months as it may think fit. 60. In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 1, this Court had an occasion to co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 the Act, 1971. (ii) There exists a distinction between an undertaking given to a party to the lis and the undertaking given to a court. The undertaking given to a court attracts the provisions of the Act, 1971 whereas an undertaking gvien to a party to the lis by way of an agreement of settlement or otherwise would not attract the provisions of the Act, 1971. In the facts of the present case, we hold that the undertaking was given to the High Court and to breach or disobedience would definitely attract the provisions of the Act, 1971. (iii) Although the transfer of the suit property pendente lite may not be termed as void ab initio yet when the court is looking into such transfers in contempt proceedings the court can definitely declar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdiction like review or appal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, V.M. Manohar Coop. Society Ltd v. Gautam Goswami and Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV. ii) B.K Kar (supra):- "Before a subordinate court can be found guilty of disobeying the order of the superior court and thus to have commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 amount to contempt of court. We may add that the fact that on receiving a copy of the High Court's order through the Additional District Magistrate not only were further proceedings stayed but a writ to redeliver possession was not permitted to issue. This would show clearly that there was no intention on the part either of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate or the second officer to disobey the order of the High Court. The conviction as also the fine of the appellant is erroneous and accordingly set aside." iii. Mrityunjoy Das (supra):- "Before however, proceeding with the matter any further it noted that exercise of powers under the Contempt of Courts Act shall have to be rather cautions and use of it rather sparingly after addressing itself to the true effect of the contemptuous conduct. The Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 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 rather hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. iv) Dinesh Kumar Gupta (supra):- 12. On a scrutiny of the sequence of events narrated herein before, we are clearly of the view in the first place that the contempt alleged against the appellant would not amount to a criminal contempt because the alleged contempt even if made out would clearly at the best be of a civil nature, which is evident from Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 which lays down as follows: (a) "contempt of court" means civil contempt or criminal contempt; (b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court; (c) "criminal contempt" means the publication....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 circumstances of the instant case. In our considered opinion, the answer clearly has to be in the negative in view of the well-settled legal position reflected in a catena of decisions of this court that contempt of a civil nature can be held to have been made out only if there has been a wilful disobedience of the order and even though there may be disobedience, yet if the same does not reflect that it has been a conscious and wilful disobedience, a case for contempt cannot be held to have been made out. In fact, if an order is capable of more than one interpretation giving rise to variety of consequences, non-compliance of the same cannot be held to be wilful disobedience of the order so as to make out a case of contempt entailing the serious consequence including imposition of punishment. However, when the Courts are confronted with a question as to whether a given situation could be treated to be a case of wilful disobedience, or a case of a lame ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IR 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 offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizens that his rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus, otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither fair nor reasonable for the law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the authorities in exercise of contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. 10. Thus, in order to punish a con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....empt 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 wilful in a particular case depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. Judicial orders are to be properly understood and complied with. Even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience particularly when the attention of the person is drawn to the Court's orders and its implication. Jurisdiction to punish for contempt exists to provide ultimate sanction against the person who refuses to comply with the order of the court or disregards the order continuously. No person can defy the Court's order. Wilful would exclude casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability to comply with the terms of the order. A petitioner who complains breach of Court's order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the Court's order." (Emphassis is supplied by us) 20. Similar is the view expressed by this Court in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union vs. Dharam Godha, Anil Kumar Shahi v. Professor Ram Sevak Yadav, Jhareswar Prasad Paul vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly, Union of India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nvolves a process of self-determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is 9 (2014) 3 SCC 373 24 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 wilful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above." (Emphassis is supplied by us) vii) Principal Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng that he had delivered the speech on the AH India Radio on the night of November 25, 1965, the contents of which were proved by the evidence of the Programme Director. It was also admitted that the Chief Minister had knowledge of the filing of the petition when he broadcast the speech and of the rule served upon the State Government. By the affidavit it was attempted to justify the speech, on the plea that the Chief Minister came to learn that certain persons had started publicly propagating the view that far from achieving the objects, the Order will not only reduce the supply of fluid milk in the area, but also displace numerous persons from their normal avocation resulting in unemployment for many, that the object of the propaganda was to criticise and ridicule the policy of the State Government in promulgating the Order, that the propaganda had misled certain sections of the people about the object, purpose and nature of the Order and the consequences thereof, particularly with regard to the position of supply of milk and the question of continued employment of the persons working in the sweetmeat shops in the area, that taking advantage of the situation, attempts were made t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in favour of or against a party before the cause is heard. It is incumbent upon Courts of justice to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented, for prejudicing the minds of the public against persons concerned as parties in causes before the cause is finally heard has pernicious consequences. Speeches or writings misrepresenting the proceedings of the Court or prejudicing the public for or against a party or involving reflections on parties to a proceeding amount to contempt. To make a speech tending to influence the result of a pending trial, whether civil or criminal is a grave contempt. Comments on pending proceedings, if emanating from the parties or their lawyers, are generally a more serious contempt than those coming from independent sources. The question in all cases of comment on pending proceedings is not whether the publication does interfere, but whether it tends to interfere, with the due course of justice. The question is not so much of the intention of the contemner as whether it is calculated to interfere with the administration of justice. As observed by the Judicial Committee in Debi Prasad Sharma and Ors. v. The King-Emperor , L.R. 70 I. A. 216 at p. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riod and a decision in one assessment year does not ordinarily operate as res judicata or estoppel in respect of the matters decided in another year. It is open to the Income-tax Officer to depart from the decision in another year since the assessment is final and conclusive between the parties only in relation to the assessment for a particular year for which it is made. x. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Lalit Kumar Bardia (supra):- 20. Transfer of proceedings u/s 127 of the Act cannot be retrospective so as to confer jurisdiction on a person who does not have it. Section 127 of the Act does not empower the Authorities under the Act to confer jurisdiction on a person who does not have jurisdiction with retrospective effect. In fact, the explanation under Section 12 of the Act clearly provides that all the proceedings under the Act which are pending on the date of such order of transfer and all the proceedings which may be commenced after date of such order of transfer would stand transferred to the Assessing Officer to whom the case is transferred by Section 127(1) of the Act. This provision makes it clear that though transfer would come into effect from the date the order of C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 30 days as provided in Sub Section (3) of Section 124 of the Act. 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 and the same having not been done in the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in annulling the assessment on this ground alone. 47. On perusal of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite party, it is evident that Courts must not 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. It is also evident that there may perhaps be a case where an order disobeyed could be reasonably construed in two ways and the subordinate court construed it in one of those ways but in a way different from that intended by the superior court. Surely, it cannot be said that disobedience of the order by the subordinate court was cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... present contempt application has been filed alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.9525(MB) of 2013, whereby notice issued to the petitioner-applicant for the assessment year 2012-13 dated 3.11.2014 was quashed on the ground of jurisdictional error and the opposite party was to delete all the outstanding amount from the web portal showing the dues to be paid. Vide order of this Court dated 28.09.2022, a show cause notice was issued to the opposite party- Mr. Harish Gidwani, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Lucknow that why he should not be tried and punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 31.03.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.9525 (M/B) of 2013. In pursuance to the same, the opposite party filed his reply. This Court, while considering the conduct of the opposite party, has taken prima facie view that the opposite party is guilty of contempt of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 and vide order dated 1.11.2023, this Court has framed three charges against the opposite party-conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in dispute that notice issued to the applicant for the assessment year 2012-13 dated 3.11.2014 was quashed on the ground of jurisdictional as well as consequential orders were also directed to be set aside. Meaning thereby, the Assessing Officer has to take care that the entry existing on the web portal was to be deleted immediately after passing of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 but deliberately and intentionally the outstanding of notice of assessment year 2011-12 became operation on the web portal till seven years and seven months which ruined the reputation of the applicant and this act of the Income Tax Authority was in deliberate and willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015. 52. Here, in the present case, as per own admission of previous learned counsel for the opposite party, the outstanding amount was deleted from the web portal after seven months, although it is actually seven years and seven months which amounts deliberate and willful disobedience of the judgment and order dated 31.03.201 for which the opposite party is liable to be punished with imprisonment as well as fine. 53. It is also relevant to note that the present contempt appli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stitution, the same should not be accepted. There ought not to be a tendency by courts, to show compassion when disobedience of an undertaking or an order is with impunity and will total consciousness. 58. In the celebrated decision of Attorney General v. Time Newspaper Ltd.; 1974 AC 273, the Hon'ble Court has held that 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. 59. Civil contempt is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine. In a given case, the court may also penalise the party in contempt by order him to pay the costs of the application and a fine can also be imposed upon the contemnor. 60. Disobedience of this Court's order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central pillar of the democratic State. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrust....