9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s counsel. Having regard to this development, the Court recorded on 15.01.2015 as follows: "2. Learned counsel submitted that in the light of these allegations they wish for further clarification from CBDT 3. Mr. Gupta is present in Court and he states that he would withdraw the allegations and that he may be permitted to address arguments in the Court instead." 2. Sh. Gupta had, in the meanwhile, sent a detailed fax to this Court in respect of these pending matters which runs into 100 pages. The Court had, however, not proceeded with that or made any adverse order at that stage given the fact that Sh. Gupta assured the Court that the allegations would be withdrawn. After the conclusion of hearing, on 09.02.2015, Sh. Gupta filed yet another affidavit titled as "Intervener Affidavit". In the affidavit, after stating that the intervener informed this Court in the hearing that the Income Tax Department had "deliberately presented weak case", and quoting the order dated 16.10.2014, the following averments were made: "F. However, no "no joint flow chart" was submitted, despite Income Tax official has submitted documents given by Intervener to them. (As stated in point D above.) G. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourable Court. Statement in my letter Please refer to above mentioned cases, there is collusion between Tax payers and Government Department officers (including their Standing Counsel/Advocate), they had deliberately presented weak case. So that Government lose these cases for the benefits of Tax payers and for getting bribe for themselves." 3. The affidavit further levels others allegations in paras 5,6 and 7 against various officials. In the affidavit, Sh. Gupta further deposed as follows: "8. Now, kindly see actions of Tax official in these cases. Detail of deliberate wrong actions by Income tax official XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX C. Summarized Brief Particulars of the case is already given to Court vide letter/e-mail dated 15/10/2014 & 14/1/2015. There are two issue (of tax evasion pending above ITA/writs) related to false evidence created by tax payers and in the knowledge of Standing Counsel of Income Tax, all the connected Income Tax officials and all concerned Assessee. Issue One: these parties Escorts Limited, Big Apple Clothing, Dr. Naresh Trehan & AAA Portfolio became owner of EHIRC hospital (Delhi Society by fraud)." XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX 11. Tax payers as well Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly appropriate action and further proceedings under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is warranted. In the circumstances, Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta is issued with Show Cause Notice, returnable on 09.04.2015 to give his explanation why he should not be proceeded with under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in respect of the above allegations. The notice shall also annex a copy of this order and the copy of the Intervener Affidavit filed by him. The Registry is directed to register a separate criminal contempt proceeding and file the originals of the Intervener Affidavit which is part of the record in ITA No.1428/2006 in the said criminal contempt proceedings. Besides, the Registry shall place on record a copy of the email and fax communication numbering 100 pages which was addressed by Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta directly to this Court. These shall be annexed along with the Show Cause Notice to be served upon Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta on the next returnable date, i.e. 09.04.2015. Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta is present in Court and has been apprised of this order. C.M. Nos.2553/2015 & 2554/2015 in ITA 1428/2006 Issue notice. Ms. Suruchii Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and copies whereof appear to have been addressed to counsel for the revenue are directed to be placed on record and made over to the appropriate Bench which is seized of the contempt proceedings. The previous order dated 15.1.2015 of the Court enabling Mr. Gupta to address arguments or make brief submissions is hereby recalled. Mr. Gupta is issued an injunction not to appear or participate in the present appeal or in any proceeding connected therewith. 4. List on 09.04.2015, the date already fixed...." 3. The respondent was given multiple opportunities to file his reply. Since the Court itself had appointed an amicus curiae in the contempt proceedings on 05.04.2016, the respondent's application being Crl. M.A. 954/2016 for appointment of an amicus curiae was dismissed as not pressed. On 11.01.2017 the Court had recorded inter alia as under: "... 3. At the outset, it may be noted that given the nature of these applications, we had endeavoured to dispose of these applications by oral orders but we were not permitted to do so by the interventions and opposition by the respondent contemnor, who did not permit us to pass orders on these applications making allegations against the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt; for early disposal of his applications; to record the Court proceedings in court by phone, camera/electronic devise; for taking action against the tax payer for allegedly making incorrect averments before the Court; and to pass an interim award of Rs. 10 cores in his favour. By order dated 25.01.2017, each of the applications were dismissed and costs of Rs. 2500/- were imposed in seven of the applications. Ordinarily, we would not have reproduced the order disposing of these applications, but the nature and the relief sought and the persistent conduct of the respondent, as recorded therein, makes it necessary for us to reproduce the order as under: 1. By way of the present order, we propose to decide 11 applications being Crl.M.A. Nos. 12118/2015, 12119/2015, 12120/2015, 18534/2015, 7868/2016, 7869/2016, 7870/2016, 17316/2016, 17317/2016, 17318/2016 and 17319/2016 filed by the respondent before us. Before dealing with the individual applications, it is necessary to note a few essential facts relating to the litigation wherefrom the present contempt proceedings arise. It appears that three Income Tax Appeals and one Writ Petition being ITA No. 1428/2006 CIT v. M/s Escorts Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tand filed in ITA No. 1428/2016 by learned counsel for the Income Tax Department. With regard to these submissions, the applicant has filed the present application seeking the following prayer : "b. Direct Ms Suruchi Aggarwal to (R-3) file affidavit about facts as requested in preceding paragraph - Para 13." 5. Such a prayer in the present application could be made only in ITA 1428/2016 and has no bearing on the consideration by us. The prayer in the present application is completely misdirected. The application is dismissed with costs which are assessed at `2,500/- which shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from today. Proof of deposit of costs shall be filed in the present proceedings. (ii) Crl.M.A.No.12119/2015 (at page 375) 6. This application is premised on the averments made in para 3, 4 and 9 which are to the following effect : "3. On 12/2/2015, Hon'ble Court bench admitted Mr. Simran Mehta CM APPL.-2553/2015 and issued notice. Mr. Simran Mehta had given copy of CM to C/R-1/IV/WB during court proceeding. On next date of hearing 12/3/2015, Mr. Simran Mehta denied giving copy of CM to C/R-1/IV/WB. 4. Acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application, the applicant prays for a direction to the Income Tax Appellate and Writ Branch of this court to supply documents relating to the aforenoticed income tax appeals and the writ petition to this court. The respondent is not a party to those matters and is not entitled to this record. It is, therefore, not open to the respondent to seek such direction. In case, any records are required for by this court, appropriate directions requisitioning the same would be made by the court. This application is dismissed with costs of `2,500/which shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from today. Proof of deposit of costs shall be filed in the present proceedings. (iv) Crl.M.A.No.18534/2015 (page 412) 10. By this application, the applicant seeks early disposal of Crl.M.A.Nos.12118/2015, 12119/2015, 12120/2015. In as much as these applications have been heard and are being disposed of by this order, Crl.M.A.No.18534/2015 is hereby disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (v) Crl.M.A.No.7868/2016 (page 451) 11. By this application, the applicant has prayed for permission to record the hearings in court by phone, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding writ petition. In any case, as observed by the Division Bench in the order dated 9th April, 2015, the applicant has no locus standi to make such a prayer. This application is dismissed with costs which are quantified at `2,500/- which shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from today. Proof of deposit of costs shall be filed in the present proceedings. (vii) Crl.M.A.No.7870/2016 (page 457) 16. We extract the averments made by the respondent on which the prayer in this application is premised: "2. Tax payers are hiding important facts and giving false statement to win tax cases/ proceeding through unfair means. And harass (C/R-1) in the contempt proceeding. 3. Income Tax department is still presenting weak case in Tax cases (ITA 1428/2006 and connected matters) and not brought to this Hon'ble court notice about their strong points and false averments of tax payers. 4. Above action of Tax payer and Tax department has resulted ,huge delay in payment of reward money to C/R-1 of more than decade. C/R-1 devote maximum time to help Tax department to collect evaded income tax. Delayed reward payment is giving huge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnatively convert present court/Bench to E court or alternatively transfer case to E Court." 21. This court is fully equipped and receives digitalised records. No direction, as sought by the applicant, are necessary and the application is dismissed. (ix) Crl.M.A.No. 17317/2016 (page 515) 22. By this application, the applicant has made a grievance that the counsels for the Income Tax Department have attended very few hearings in the present proceedings and seeks directions to the Tax Department to depute a representative to this court for completion of formalities. It is trite that contempt proceedings are between the court and the contemnor. In case, presence of any particular person or authority is deemed necessary, it is for the court to so direct. The prayer made in this application is misconceived and is rejected with costs of `2,500/- which shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from today. Proof of deposit of costs shall be filed in the present proceedings. (x) Crl.M.A.No.17318/2016 (page 519) 23. In this application, the respondent has made the following assertions in paras 3 and 4: "3. C/R-1 is facing this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ween direction issued and ITAT order. And this point should be part of ITAT records." On these averments, he makes the following prayer : "b. C/R-1 request this Hon'ble Court to call the complete records from ITAT and appeals filed in Delhi High Court of AAA Portfolio P Ltd Case." 28. Such a prayer may be relevant for the purposes of deciding the issues in the Income Tax Appeals and writ petition. Such prayer in the present proceedings is completely misdirected. The application is dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 2,500/- which shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from today. Proof of deposit of costs shall be filed in the present proceedings....." 5. There is no record of the respondent having deposited the said costs imposed upon him. In other words, he is in default of the said directions. Subsequently, on 17.05.2017, the Court noted that although on 25.01.2017 the respondent had declined the appointment of a lawyer from the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee to assist him in the present proceedings, nevertheless on his oral request in the Court, Mr. Manoj Ohri, Sr. Advocate was appointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y done so, he is not willing to withdraw all the allegations levelled against the lawyers representing the Revenue Department. We, therefore, asked Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta to address us in relation to the Show Cause Notice issued under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta having addressed us for an hour and a half on the 28"' July, 2017 before the order referred to hereinabove came to be recorded and having further addressed us for twenty minutes today, expresses his inability to conclude his submissions on account of his illness, characterised as pain in his left eye. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta further articulates in Court that he feels his blood pressure has shot up and he feels the need to use the wash room frequently and is, further, unable to continue his arguments today. He, therefore, requests that the matter be adjourned for a month and a half in order to enable him to recoup his health and address this Court. We are constrained to observe that the conduct of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta in the present proceedings, as well as, in the Court has been unreasonable and dilatory. Even as we were dictating this order he has interrupted us a few times ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mer. He is seeking intervention in the present appeal. We have heard him at length and we have also heard the learned counsel for the assessee as well as the learned counsel for the revenue. Without going into the allegations and counter allegations which have been leveled, we are of the view that since this Court has already submitted this appeal and substantial questions of law have been framed, the informer has no role to play. He is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Consequently, his application for intervention is rejected. If he has any grievance, he has other avenues open to him under law. But, intervening in an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is certainly not one of those avenues. The application is dismissed." 9. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate (Amicus Curiae) has submitted that the respondent has leveled baseless and wanton allegations against counsel, who were representing their respective departments and were assisting the Court, this amounts to intervention in the administration of justice and constitutes criminal contempt of court. He relies upon the following judgments: (i) H. Syama Sundara Rao vs UOI & Ors. 2007 Crl. LJ 2626 in which it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es for his client and in certain circumstances in embarrassing him in the discharge of those duties. It was observed that comment upon an advocate which had reference to the conduct of his cases might amount to contempt of court on exactly the same principle which was applicable with regard to the criticism of a Judge or the judgment." (v) Damayanti G. Chandiramani vs S. Vaney AIR 1966 Bom 19 in which it was held as under: "Contempt of Court may be said to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of Law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice parties' litigant or their witnesses during the litigation. It is settled law that disrespect or disregard to an advocate in certain circumstances so as to deter him from discharging his duties would amount to contempt of court." 10. In H. Syama Sundara Rao (supra) this Court had held as under: "......17. In Charan Lal Sahu (supra) while hearing a petition stated to be a Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner couched in unsavoury language, the Supreme Court observed that the petitioner therein had made intentional attempt to indulge in mudslinging against the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the flow of justice or renders a professional unworthy of exercising the privileges of his profession, as also the duty of the members of the bar towards the bench so as to maintain dignity of the court etc. By relying on the said judgments, the petitioner is trying to state that as the reply filed by the respondents contains falsehoods allegedly made at the instance of and legal advise rendered by the counsel, therefore, it is not the petitioner, but the counsel who is guilty of contempt of this Court. We are unable to appreciate the arguments made by the petitioner. Even assuming that false averments were made in the reply by the respondents, the petitioner has the liberty to point out the same to the Court in the course of arguments or by filing appropriate proceedings and the Court would have taken appropriate action, if deemed necessary and proper. However, the Court cannot permit the petitioner to don the mantle of a Judge, level accusations against the counsel for the other side, hold him guilty and threaten him with various consequences during the pendency of the case, as done by the petitioner in the present case. 21. In fact, one of the judgments relied upon by the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents. However, immediately thereafter, the petitioner pressed his arguments in reply to the notice to show cause and stated that he had in fact not committed any contempt. Even in the written submissions handed over by the petitioner in the course of arguments on 2nd November, 2006, the petitioner starts by saying "he has not committed any contempt and in fact it is the advocate for the respondents who has committed professional misconduct, criminal contempt and fraud on judiciary." Thereafter, the petitioner has reiterated all the averments that he made against the advocate in the notices served upon the advocate as also in the earlier reply to the notice to show cause issued by us. The petitioner was informed by the court that if he thought it proper he may tender an unconditional apology and that he could not add any riders or stipulations to his apology. The petitioner thereafter continued to address us on the contempt and sought to justify his acts. Therefore, the question of dropping the proceedings was ruled out...." 11. From the preceding narration of facts, it is evident that the respondent Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta has cast aspersions against the integrity of the advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allegations against the counsel for the Revenue and aspersions cast upon their professional integrity by the respondent, would deter and inhibit counsel from rendering assistance to the Court and to their client fully and freely. It would also be a serious and constant embarrassment in the legal fraternity and amongst their respective families, between relatives and social circle. Indeed, two standing counsel concerned who had appeared for the Revenue and had assisted the Court had recused themselves from this case. 14. From the preceding discussion, it is clear that after the respondent's intervention application was rejected on 23.09.2008, his continued engagement in communication with the standing counsel for levelling allegations against them, addressing e-mail directly to this Court and placing on record an affidavit detailing the allegations, even after stating that he will withdraw them vis-a-vis the standing counsel but would nevertheless press the same allegations elsewhere constitutes criminal contempt of court. Mr. Gupta has levelled irresponsible and serious allegations against the counsel for the Revenue, including an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate seeki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
