2023 (11) TMI 240 - HC - Income Tax

Guilty of contempt of the orders passed by the writ Court - Proceedings against the DCIT for disobeying the orders (directions) of HC - DCIT submitted that they have decided to challenge the order of HC before the SC, therefore there is no illegality in passing the impugned order - issue was related to jurisdiction to assess the applicant at Lucknow or New Delhi - outstanding demand on the web portal even after writ court orders - HELD THAT - On perusal, it is found that the judgment and order 2015 (3) TMI 1229 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT passed by the writ Court is unambiguous and clear and is not confined to any particular year but lays down the jurisdiction of the authority in accordance with the provisions contained in the Income Tax Act, 1961. Sections 124 and 127 of the Act and has clearly recorded that in case any objection being raised in respect of the jurisdiction of the assessing officer as has been done in the present case when the applicant had referred the pending writ petition after the issuance of the first notice dated 20.09.2014, the opposite party should have awaited the decision of the writ Court and in any case as the income tax authorities are expected to proceed in disciplined manner without creating any doubt in the minds of the assessee s, it was the duty of the assessing officer (opposite party) to have referred the question of jurisdiction to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as the case may be u/s 124(2) and not doing so renders the action of the opposite party illegal. Demand on the income tax portal pursuant to assessment made by the opposite party - As find that the assessment order for the assessment year 2012-13 was passed on 30.03.2015 during the pendency of the writ petition and on the very next day the writ Court had passed 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. 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 Charges framed and the applicant is required to appear in person and answer the charge of contempt on the next date of listing - List this contempt application on 21.11.2023

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Alleged willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015.
2. Jurisdictional authority of the tax assessment by the Lucknow Income Tax Authority.
3. Failure to withdraw the demand from the Income Tax web portal.

Summary:

Issue 1: Alleged Willful and Deliberate Disobedience

The present contempt application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleges 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. The Court had directed that the jurisdiction to assess the applicant at Lucknow was absent and the assessment should be conducted by the authority in New Delhi. Despite this, the respondent-contemnor proceeded with the assessment and issued a demand notice, which was quashed by the writ Court.

Issue 2: Jurisdictional Authority of Tax Assessment

The writ Court had clearly stated that the tax authority at Lucknow had no jurisdiction to assess the applicant and that the petitioner could only be assessed by the authority at New Delhi. The opposite party, however, continued to assess the applicant at Lucknow, which was seen as an act of fraud and beyond their jurisdiction. This action was deemed illegal as it violated Sections 124 and 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the settled procedure.

Issue 3: Failure to Withdraw Demand from Web Portal

Despite the order quashing the assessment, the demand continued to be displayed on the Income Tax web portal for over seven years, affecting the applicant's creditworthiness. The opposite party argued that they were awaiting the filing of a special leave petition before the Supreme Court and hence did not comply with the writ Court's order. However, the Court found that the opposite party acted in contempt by not withdrawing the demand, which was only removed after it was pointed out during the hearing of the application.

Conclusion:

The Court found that the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 was clear and unambiguous, stating that the Lucknow tax authority did not have jurisdiction over the applicant. The opposite party's actions were deemed willful and deliberate contempt of the Court's order. Charges were framed against Mr. Harish Gidwani, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-II, Lucknow, for willfully flouting the order, creating jurisdiction improperly, and failing to delete the outstanding amount from the web portal. The case is listed for further hearing on 21.11.2023.