9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search warrant issued under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Alleged disobedience of the High Court's stay order by the Income-tax authorities. 3. Contempt of Court proceedings against the Income-tax Commissioner and Officer. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Search Warrant: The case began with a writ petition challenging the legality of a search warrant issued under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the search and seizure of cash and documents from his office-cum-residence were unlawful. The High Court issued an interim stay on further proceedings and ordered the Income-tax authorities to produce the original search warrants and related records. 2. Alleged Disobedience of the High Court's Stay Order: The petitioner's advocate informed the Income-tax Officer about the High Court's stay order. Despite this, the Income-tax Officer proceeded with the case and issued an order under section 132(5) of the Act. The petitioner filed a civil miscellaneous application to quash this order, arguing that it was passed in defiance of the High Court's stay order. The Income-tax authorities contended that the oral communication of the stay order was insufficient and that no affidavit or certified copy was provided. 3. Contempt of Court Proceedings: The High Court examined whether the Income-tax authorities willfully disobeyed its stay order. The Court noted that the Income-tax Officer did not deny being informed about the stay order and even acknowledged that an earlier stay would have saved her the trouble of processing the case. The Court found that the Income-tax Officer had no doubt about the authenticity of the stay order. The Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Officer were found guilty of civil contempt for willfully disobeying the High Court's order. The Court held that the Income-tax Officer's actions, including tampering with the order sheet, indicated a deliberate attempt to ignore the stay order. The Commissioner of Income-tax was found to have encouraged this defiance. Both were held guilty of civil contempt under section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Judgments: - Income-tax Officer: The Court acknowledged that the Income-tax Officer was in a difficult situation, torn between obeying the High Court's stay order and following her superior's instructions. She was given a stern warning for future conduct. - Commissioner of Income-tax: The Commissioner was found to have willfully disobeyed the High Court's order and was sentenced to two weeks of civil imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200, with an additional week of imprisonment in default of payment. The Court emphasized that an apology must be sincere and offered at the earliest opportunity. The Commissioner's belated apology was deemed insincere and was not accepted. The Income-tax Officer's apology was considered in light of her subordinate position and the difficult circumstances she faced.
|
