9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent 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 judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, 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 11.9.2013, which is computer generated clearly reveals that the Delhi address of the petitioner was scored out and in handwriting, the local address has been added. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the Delhi Address was not in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 which had deprived the applicant in several ways. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that even after the writ Court had clearly provided in the judgment and order dated 31.03.201 that the tax authority at Luckno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 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 had been pointed out clearing the hearing of the contempt petition the opposite party was instrumental in getting the demand reflected on the web portal withdrawn by the present assessing officer and as of now the dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 order dated 31.3.2015 and no further proceedings for assessment year 2012-13 was initiated by the opposite party is found to have inadvertently violated the orders of this Court, then he renders unconditional ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot 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) No.9525 of 2013 and proceeded with the assessment year 2013-14 when the writ Court had recorded that the Tax Authority at Lucknow do not have jurisdiction to assess the petitioner at Lucknow and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
