9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions of the order passed in the writ petitions, which were heavily relied on by the appellant, were held to be observations made by the learned Writ Court. The informant, who is the appellant before us, does not have a right of filing an appeal under Section 19 of the 1971 Act or against an order refusing to initiate contempt proceedings or disposing of the application or petition filed for initiating such proceedings and he cannot be called an aggrieved party. Therefore, the appellant could not have maintained an appeal under Section 19 of the 1971 Act. If such is the situation, can the appellant invoke Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and seek for maintaining this intra-court appeal. The answer to the question should be answered in the negative and against the appellant. To put it plainly, the appellant is seeking to indirectly achieve what he could not achieve in terms of the provisions of the 1971 Act. The facts in the decision in Ashis Chakraborty [ 1991 (12) TMI 289 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ] which was referred to in Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association [ 2008 (12) TMI 676 - SUPREME COURT ] is couched on an entirely different factual background and would n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .P.No.3929 of 2014 to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 15.01.2014, under Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the I.T.Act ) rejecting the petition filed by the appellant to compound the offence framed against him under Section 276C and Section 277 of the I.T.Act for the assessment year 2002-03. 5.It was alleged by the respondent-Department that when the appellant filed his return of income for the assessment year 2002-03, he has concealed an amount of ₹ 2,26,38,372/- deposited in a foreign bank account and therefore, to be prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 276C of the I.T.Act. The appellant filed a petition under Section 279(1) of the I.T.Act for compounding the offence. The first respondent, after referring to the facts of the case and after hearing the Authorized Representative of the appellant, took note of the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 16.05.2008, wherein guidelines have been laid down by the CBDT with regard to compounding of offence under the Direct Tax Laws. The first respondent, in his order dated 15.01.2014, while rejecting the compounding petition, observed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.C., to quash the criminal complaint, the Court held that the observation made in paragraph 19 of the said order dated 28.02.2019, is per incuriam and the observation made therein is not the proper appraisal and cannot be relied on. In this regard, the Court referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Dass vs. ITO [(1999) 5 SCC 241]. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 28.08.2019, and the operative portion of the order reads as follows:- 10.In the light of the above observations, the impugned order passed by the first respondent herein under Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 15.01.2014 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Committee prescribed under the CBDT Guideline No.7.1(c) dated 16.05.2008. The petitioner is granted liberty to place a copy of this order along with afresh compounding petition under Section 279 of the Income Tax Act, before the Committee, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the aforesaid application along with a copy of this order, the Committee shall consider the same, in the light of the observations made in this order and pass a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the respondents are liable to be punished for contempt. The contempt petition was heard by the Court and by order dated 31.01.2020, the Court found that there is no merit in the contempt petition. The following observation has been made by the Court in support of its conclusion:- 29.Though the learned Single Judge has given categorical findings that there was no impediment on the part of the Department to compound offence under Section 279(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, yet, in the operative portion of the order, the learned Single Judge has directed the the respondent to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The relevant portion of Section 279(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 reads as under:- Section 279. Prosecution to be at the instance of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner:- 1 .. (1A) A person shall not be proceeded against for an offence under section 276C or section 277 in relation to the assessment for an assessment year in respect of which the penalty imposed or imposable on him under clause (iii) of sub- section (1) of section 271 has been reduced or waived by an order under section 273A.] 2 ... 3 30.In the light of the said direction, the petitioner filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shis Chakraborty vs. Hindusthan Lever Sramik Karmachari Congress [(1992) 1 CHN 160 (Cal)] . The learned Senior Counsel would submit that if the scope of the appeal under Section 19 of the 1971 Act is restricted only to punishment imposed under Section 12 of the 1971 Act and nothing beyond, then a person, who is ex facie found guilty of contempt under Section 14 of the 1971 Act and is detained in custody pending the hearing on the charge of contempt and is refused bail, would have no right of appeal against such refusal of bail pending the decision on the charge of contempt, which will amount to deprive the alleged contemnor on the right of appeal in such circumstances. Paragraphs 44 to 46 of the judgment have also been referred to, to buttress the submission that the intracourt appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is maintainable. 11.Opposing the prayer sought for by the appellant, the learned Senior Standing Counsel submitted that the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble three Judge decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of J.S.Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar Ors. [(1996) 6 SCC 291] is a clear answer to the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the alleged Contemnor. No one can compel or demand as of right initiation of proceedings for contempt. Certain principles have emerged. A jurisdiction in contempt shall be exercised only on a clear case having been made out. Mere technical contempt may not be taken note of. It is not personal glorification of a Judge in his office but an anxiety to maintain the efficacy of justice administration system effectively which dictates the conscience of a Judge to move or not to move in contempt jurisdiction. Often an apology is accepted and the felony condoned if the Judge feels convinced of the genuineness of the apology and the prestige of the Court having been restored. Source of initiation of contempt proceedings may be suo motu, on a Reference being made by the Advocate General or any other person with the consent in writing of the Advocate General or on Reference made by a Subordinate Court in case of criminal contempt. A private party or a litigant may also invite the attention of the Court to such facts as may persuade the Court in initiating proceedings for contempt. However, such person filing an application or petition before the Court does not become a complainant or petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
