9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (7) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fice of the Income-tax Officer to inform her about it. He reached her office at about 2.30 p.m. when she was not present there and a clerk of her office was shown this order. The said clerk copied it out in his own handwriting and stated that he would place it before the Income-tax Officer when she returned. The clerk also informed Mr. S. C. Sibal that the Income-tax Officer had gone to the office of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Mr. J. S. Dulat. What happened thereafter is given in paragraph 3 of the affidavit sworn by Shri S. C. Sibal, which reads as under : " That the deponent with the order of the hon'ble High Court and the copy of the petition left immediately for the office of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner where he reached at about 2.45 p.m. The Income-tax Officer was sitting in the office of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. She was shown the order of the hon'ble High Court which she read herself. She further remarked that if the order had been obtained earlier, she would have been saved the trouble of processing this case. At that time, Mr. J. S. Dulat, Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, was not sitting in the office. After a few minutes, the Inspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interests of justice ". Reply to this civil miscellaneous application was filed on behalf of the Income-tax Officer. It was stated therein that Shri S. C. Sibal, advocate, showed to the Income-tax Officer what purported to be the last page of the petition with some lines scribbled in hand at the back of that page. He stated that it was an order passed by the High Court on a writ petition filed by Shri Hira Lal Sibal. In the meantime, Shri J. S. Dulat also came into the room and Shri S. C. Sibal also told him that this court had passed the stay order. Thereafter, he left in a hurry without leaving any document or copy of the stay order said to have been passed by this court. Paragraph 3 of the affidavit of Shri S. C. Sibal about what happened when he went to inform the Income-tax Officer and in which it is specifically mentioned that, on seeing the order, the Income-tax Officer remarked that if the order had been obtained earlier, she would have been saved the trouble of processing the case has been replied in the following terms : " That para. 3 of the application is admitted in so far as Shri S. C. Sibal had informed respondents Nos. 2 and 4 about the passing of the order and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1975, and about that day also no mention had been made in any relevant order that the order issued by her had actually been served on Shri Hira Lal Sibal or not. From this, it is sought to be inferred that the Income-tax Officer had come to know that the proceedings had been stayed by this court and she purposely did not record any proceedings on January 13 and 14, 1975. According to Mr. Sibal, it was obvious that she was not prepared to obey the orders of this court. Instead of refraining from taking further proceedings, the Income-tax Officer went to Patiala, informed the Commissioner of Income-tax about everything, passed the final order which was approved of by the latter in spite of the knowledge of this fact that this court had stayed the passing of the final orders. The Commissioner of Income-tax and the Income-tax Officer filed additional affidavits. The former stated that in the situation arising out of the numerous proceedings under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, the department had to maintain a uniform practice in order to safeguard the interests of the revenue and the manner in which an oral communication was made in the instant case to respondents Nos. 2 and 4 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings against them under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and directed that notices under that section read with rule 9(a) of the Contempt of Courts (Punjab and Haryana) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter called the Rules), be issued to the respondents in the prescribed form to appear before us on May 5, 1975, to answer the charge of having allegedly disobeyed the stay order issued by this court on January 13, 1975. The respondents appeared in person on that date and on an undertaking being given by Mr. Awasthy that they shall appear in court as and when called upon to do so, we dispensed with their personal appearance, under sub-rule (7) of rule 6 of the Rules, till further orders. Under sub-rule (3) of rule 15 of the said Rules, we appointed the Advocate-General, Haryana, for conducting the proceedings on behalf of the court. The respondents filed written statements in reply to the notices and the learned Advocate-General, Haryana, stated that he would like to file a counter-affidavit in reply to the affidavits of the respondents. He was allowed to do so within ten days after serving an advance copy of the counter-affidavit on Mr. Awasthy. The case was ordered to come up on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... does not agree with my above submissions, I unhesitatingly tender my unqualified apology as I do not ever intend or did ever intend to defy the unquestionable authority of this hon'ble court. " Mr. J. S. Dulat in his affidavit has also stated that he and the Income-tax Officer had a bona fide belief that, considering the nature of the proceedings under section 132(5) of the Act, in order to stop the running of time there should either be a certified copy of the order or at least an affidavit from the petitioner that a stay order had been passed. Since the Income-tax Officer was taking the draft order under section 132(5) of the Act, in the case of Shri Hira Lal Sibal, he advised her to bring this matter to the notice of the Income-tax Commissioner so that he might decide whether the order should be finalised or not. The affidavit filed by the Income-tax Officer is on the same lines. She has stated that she had all along acted in the bona fide belief that no order had been passed by this court and has towards the end stated that in case this court does not agree with her above submissions, she unhesitatingly tendered her unqualified apology " as I do not ever intend or did ever i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the exact order was sufficient and official communication was not a condition precedent when there was no reason to doubt the authenticity of the order. Further : " Contempt proceedings against a person who has failed to comply with the court's order serves a dual purpose : (1) vindication of the public interest by punishment of contemptuous conduct, and (2) coercion to compel the contemner to do what the law requires of him. The sentence imposed should effectuate both these purposes. It must also be clearly understood in this connection that to employ a subterfuge to avoid compliance of a court's order about which there could be no reasonable doubt may in certain circumstances aggravate the contempt. " On behalf of the respondents reliance has been placed on Bunna Prasad v. State of U.P. This case arose out of the following facts. A petition was filed in the High Court regarding the transfer of a criminal case on which ad interim stay order was passed. Information about the grant of this stay order was conveyed telegraphically by the counsel to the party concerned. On receipt of this information, the party is alleged to have filed a copy of the telegram along with an affi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the superior court. The evidence brought on record may now be examined. It is not disputed that Mr. S. C. Sibal, advocate, did inform the Income-tax Officer that further proceedings in the case had been stayed by this court. His allegation that when the Income-tax Officer was conveyed this information, she remarked that had the stay order been passed earlier she would have been saved the trouble of processing the case, has not been specifically denied. In these circumstances, it must be held that the Income-tax Officer had no doubt in her mind about the authenticity of the information conveyed to her, for, otherwise, she would have informed Shri S. C. Sibal that he should either file an affidavit of the party or a certified copy of the order passed by this court. It has not been averred by her that she informed Shri Sibal that she was not satisfied about the information conveyed by him. Even if there was any doubt in her mind while discussing the matter with respondent No. 2, after Shri S. C. Sibal had left, she could have resolved the same by making a telephonic call to the Registrar of this court. Shri J. S. Dulat has also not stated that being dissatisfied by the oral i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not necessary to go to the office for recording evidence. It is the normal practice with the quasi-judicial tribunals to record, day-to-day proceedings on an order sheet attached to the file. The order sheet attached to the file or proceedings under section 132(5) of the Act reads as under : " 24/10 Notice u/s 132(5) issued. 6/11 A letter of ' A ' received. 12/11 Reply to 'A' sent. 18/11 Reply to notice u/s 132(5) filed. 7/12 Letter of enquiry issued to ' A'. 10/12 Letter of 'A' received and placed on file. 17/12 Letter from ' A ' received for adjustment of seized cash towards instalment of advance tax; requesting for adjournment and reply to letter of enquiry. Adjournment allowed to 19/12 and refused the adjustment asked for. 26/12 Reply to enquiry letter filed. 28/12 Letter sent to 'A' for recording his statement on 31/12. 31/12 Statement of the 'A ' recorded. 2/1 Letter from 'A' received and placed on record. 6/1 A letter from 'A ' received and placed on record. 12/1 Order discussed with the C.I.T. 14/1 The order discussed with the C.I.T. finally and passed the order. 5/4 Copy of order sheet entries given to Shri B. M. Khanna. The do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not consider the oral communication of the stay order issued by this court to the Income-tax Officer sufficient for saving limitation in time-bound proceedings. Information may be oral so far as the Income-tax Commissioner is concerned, but one cannot forget that he was being informed by a responsible Income-tax Officer who is proved to have been satisfied about the authenticity of the information. It was at that stage the duty of the Commissioner of Income-tax either to accept the information or to advise the Income-tax Officer to make necessary enquiries for getting official confirmation of the same. Even from Patiala telephonic information could have been obtained from the Registrar of this court. These circumstances clearly indicate that the Commissioner of Income-tax was in an undue hurry to go ahead with the matter in spite of the knowledge that further proceedings had been stayed by this court. It is no defence on the part of the Commissioner of Income-tax to say that where interested parties filed affidavits the proceedings were stayed and this uniform policy had to be adopted in the instant case also. It has nowhere been stated by him that he brought this policy of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivil contempt as defined in section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter called " the 1971 Act "). We accordingly hold them guilty of the said charge. Respondent No. 2 merely directed respondent No. 3 to apprise respondent No. 1 of the manner in which Shri S. C. Sibal apprised them of the aforementioned order passed by the Motion Bench to seek guidance from the latter. By so doing, he did not himself disobey any order passed by this court. The rule against him deserves to be discharged and we order accordingly. It is now to be seen what action, if any, should be taken against respondents Nos. 1 and 3 under section 12 of the 1971 Act, in view of the apology tendered by them. An apology available to a contemner as a lot defence must be sincere and offered at the earliest occasion. Under the old law a conditional apology was not regarded as an apology at all. In M. Y. Shareef v. Hon'ble Judges of the Nagpur High Court it was held that there could not be both justification and an apology. The two things were incompatible with each other, and it was observed as under : " The proposition is well-settled and self-evident that there cannot be both justification and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... empt as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Aligarh Municipal Board's case. In the case of respondent No. 1, the other circumstance which can be taken into consideration is that being a responsible officer it was his duty not only to obey the orders passed by this court but also to see that the officials working under him did not treat such orders in a light manner. He not only persuaded respondent No. 3 to pass the order under section 132(5) of the Act but himself accorded approval to it. In these circumstances, we ignore the apology tendered by him. We are also of the view that a sentence of fine alone will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary in this case. Accordingly, he is ordered to be detained in a civil prison for a period of two weeks and is also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 200. In default of payment of fine, he shall be further detained in the civil prison for a period of one week. The case of respondent No. 3 stands on a different footing. She has rightly stated on oath that she was faced with a difficult situation. On the one hand she was confronted with a stay order issued by the Motion Bench and on the oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
