9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 asseessees. 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 subsection (2) of Section 124 of the Act and not doing so, this vitiated the further proceedings. Here, there is complete departure from the settled procedure. It comes out from the record that when the petitioner refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the said Assessing Officer at Lucknow, the authority/respondent No.2 proceeded ex parte and dispatched a demand of almost Rs. 52 lacs. At the cost of repetition, we would like to mention that in the notice dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel 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 portal for about 7 years and 7 months and it was only after it was pointed out before this Court during the hearing of the application that the outstanding demand on the web portal had been causing grave humiliation to the applicant who was being treated as a defaulter of income tax by financial institution and the credit worthiness of the applicant had also been seriously impacted whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel 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 of income tax is different and since the order dated 31.03.2015 had been passed in respect of assessment year 2012-13 it would have no application in respect of the assessment year 2013-14. 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that the opposite party was not responsible for withdrawing the demand from the web portal of the income tax and in any case after the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 while passing the assessment order for the assessment year 2013-14 the assessing officer had given opportunity to the applicant during course of the assessment proceedings to provide any such letter or application for transfer of jurisdiction, but no reply was submitted by him. He again submitted that the opposite party has not violated the directions given by this Court vide judgment and orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so 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 totalities of facts and circumstances of the case, following charges are being framed and the applicant is required to appear in person and answer the charge of contempt on the next date of listing: "(i) Why the opposite party-contemnor, Mr. Harish Gidwani, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-II, Lucknow be not punished for willfully flouting the order dated 31.03.2015 passed in Writ Petition (MB) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
