# Prashant Chandra v. Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2 Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 428
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-09
- **Case number:** Contempt Application (Civil) No. 562 of 2016
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prashant-chandra-v-harish-gidwani-deputy-commissioner-of-income-tax-range-2-opp-52366
- **Pages:** 37

## Headnote

Neeraj
Chitravanshi,
Kushagra
Dikshit,
Manish Mishra
8 All. Prashant Chandra Vs. Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2
429
A. Contempt Law - Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 - Section 12 - Scope -Majesty
of court of law - Willful disobedience -
Writ Court quashed the notice issued to
the petitioner for assessment year 201112 on the ground of jurisdictional error
and the opposite party was to delete all
the outstanding amount from the web
portal showing the dues to be paid -
However, deliberately and intentionally
the outstanding of notice of assessment
year 2011-12 became operation on the
web portal till seven years and seven
months which ruined the reputation of the
applicant - Willful disobedience alleged -
Majesty of court of law, when is required
to be upheld - Held, willful and deliberate
contempt must be punished both by the
imprisonment and fine as it is absolutely
imperative to uphold the dignity and
majesty of a court of law (Para 48, 51 and
55)

B. Contempt law - Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 - S. 12 - Scope -Courts must
not travel beyond the four corners of the
order which is alleged to have been
flouted or enter into questions that have
not been dealt with or decided in the
judgment or the order violation of which is
alleged. (Para 47)

C. Rule of law - Disobedience of the Court
- Role of Judiciary - Disobedience of this
Court's order strikes at the very root of
the rule of law on which the judicial
system rests. The rule of law is the
foundation
of
a
democratic
society.
Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law.
Hence, it is not only the third pillar but
also the central pillar of the democratic
St.. If the judiciary is to perform its duties
and functions effectively and remain true
to the spirit with which they are sacredly
entrusted to it, the dignity and authority
of the Courts have to be respected and
protect at all costs. (Para 60)

Contempt disposed of. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,685 of 126,916. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39685 for what follows._

428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. Now, there is one more legal issue
as to whether revisionist-defendant is
having any remedy available under the law
or not, in case there is no allegation against
him in the plaint.

21. I have perused the Order I Rule 10
CPC that will come in the rescue of
revisionist-defendant,
which
is
being
quoted hereinbelow:

"10. Suit in name of wrong
plaintiff.-(1) Where a suit has been
instituted in the name of the wrong person
as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether
it has been instituted in the name of the
right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage
of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been
instituted through a bona fide mistake, and
that it is necessary for the determination of
the real matter in dispute so to do, order
any other person to be substituted or added
as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court
thinks just.

(2) Court may strike out or add
parties.-The Court may at any stage of the
proceedings, either upon or without the
application of either party, and on such
terms as may appear to the Court to be
just, order that the name of any party
improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or
defendant, be struck out, and that the name
of any person who ought to have been
joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or
whose presence before the Court may be
necessary in order to enable the Court
effectually and completely to adjudicate
upon and settle all the questions involved in
the suit, be added

...................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
.........................................................
........................................................"

22. Order I Rule 10(2) CPC provides
that court may at any stage of the proceedings
either upon or without the application of
either party may strike out name, in case any
party is joined improperly, whether it is
plaintiff or the defendant. Meaning thereby
that revisionist-defendant is having remedy to
move application to strike out its name from
the array of defendants in Original Suit No.
308 of 2023 as its name has been joined
improperly as neither there is any cause of
action shown nor relief has been claimed
against the revisionist-defendant.

23. Therefore, in view of the law
discussed as above, I find no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned order dated
16.05.2024.

24. Petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.

25. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 428
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Contempt Application (Civil) No. 562 of 2016

Prashant Chandra ...Applicant
Versus
Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of
Income Tax Range 2 ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Mudit Agarwal, Anand Prakash Sinha,
Radhika Singh

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
Neeraj
Chitravanshi,
Kushagra
Dikshit,
Manish Mishra
8 All. Prashant Chandra Vs. Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2
429
A. Contempt Law - Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 - Section 12 - Scope -Majesty
of court of law - Willful disobedience -
Writ Court quashed the notice issued to
the petitioner for assessment year 201112 on the ground of jurisdictional error
and the opposite party was to delete all
the outstanding amount from the web
portal showing the dues to be paid -
However, deliberately and intentionally
the outstanding of notice of assessment
year 2011-12 became operation on the
web portal till seven years and seven
months which ruined the reputation of the
applicant - Willful disobedience alleged -
Majesty of court of law, when is required
to be upheld - Held, willful and deliberate
contempt must be punished both by the
imprisonment and fine as it is absolutely
imperative to uphold the dignity and
majesty of a court of law (Para 48, 51 and
55)

B. Contempt law - Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971 - S. 12 - Scope -Courts must
not travel beyond the four corners of the
order which is alleged to have been
flouted or enter into questions that have
not been dealt with or decided in the
judgment or the order violation of which is
alleged. (Para 47)

C. Rule of law - Disobedience of the Court
- Role of Judiciary - Disobedience of this
Court's order strikes at the very root of
the rule of law on which the judicial
system rests. The rule of law is the
foundation
of
a
democratic
society.
Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law.
Hence, it is not only the third pillar but
also the central pillar of the democratic
St.. If the judiciary is to perform its duties
and functions effectively and remain true
to the spirit with which they are sacredly
entrusted to it, the dignity and authority
of the Courts have to be respected and
protect at all costs. (Para 60)

Contempt disposed of. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sebastian M. Hongray Vs U.O.I.; (1984) 3
SCC 82

2. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Ashok Khot
& anr.; (2006) 5 SCC 1

3. Patel Rajnikant Dhulalbai & anr. Vs Patel
Chandrkant Dhulabhai & ors.; (2008) 14 SCC
561

4. Civil Appeal No. 4955 of 2022; Balwantbhai
Somabhai Bhandari Vs Hiralal Somabhai & ors.
decided on 06.09.2023

5. Sudhir Vasudeva Vs M. George Ravishekaran;
(2014) 3 SCC 373

6. B.K. Kar Vs The Chief Justice and His
Companion Judges; AIR 1961 SC367

7. Mrityunjoy Das & ors. Vs Hasibur Rahaman &
ors.; (2002) 3 SCC 739

8. Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs Unite India Insurance
Company Ltd. & ors.; (2010) 12 SCC 770

9. Ram Kishan Vs Tarun Bajaj & ors.; 2014(16)
SCC 204

10. Avishek Raja & ors. Vs Sanjay Gupta; (2017)
8 SCC 435

11. Civil Appeal No. 8132 of 2019; Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S I-Ven
Interactive Ltd., Mumbai

12. In Re: P.C. Sen v. Unknown; AIR 1970 SC
1821

13. Raza Textiles Ltd. Vs Commissioner of
Income Tax; 1989 (178) ITR 496

14. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Lalit Kumar
Bardia; ITA 127 of 2006

15. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s All
India Children Care & Education; IAPL 89 of
2003

16. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Sohan Lal
Sewa Ram Jaggi decided on 05.02.2008
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
17. Attorney General Vs Time Newspaper Ltd.;
1974 AC 273

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Radhika Singh, learned
counsel for the applicant and Shri Neerav
Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the
opposite party assisted by Shri Kushagra
Dikshit, learned Advocate at length.

2. Order dated 1.11.2023 vide which
charges have been framed, notices gist of
the matter. The said order is extracted
hereinbelow:

 1. Heard Ms. Radhika Singh,
learned Advocate for the applicant along
with Sri Anand Prakash Sinha, learned
Advocate and Shri Neerav Chitravanshi,
learned counsel for the opposite party
assisted by Shri Kushagra Dikshit, learned
Advocate.
 2.
The
present
contempt
application under Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been
filed
alleging
willful
and
deliberate
disobedience of judgment and order dated
31.03.2015 passed by a Division Bench of
this Court in Writ Petition No.9525 (MB) of
2013 whereby the following direction was
issued:

"A perusal of Annexure SA-3
annexed with the supplementary affidavit
dated 31.3.2015 shows that in response to
the notice dated 3.11.2014, the petitioner
preferred written objection to the Assessing
Officer bringing 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 sub-section (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
knowledge of the respondents and we find
force in the submissions of the petitioner
that local address was inserted deliberately
to create jurisdiction, which, in fact, legally
was not vested with the opposite party
No.2. Therefore, the opposite party No.2
exceeded its jurisdiction, which not only
vitiates the impugned show cause notice
but the entire proceedings. In these
circumstances,
the
entire
proceedings
being ab initio illegal, without jurisdiction
and in violation of Section 143 (1) (a) of
the Income-tax Act.

For the reasons aforesaid, the
writ petition is allowed and the impugned
notice dated 11.9.2013 is quashed. As the
notice notice has already been quashed,
8 All. Prashant Chandra Vs. Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2
431
consequential orders, if any, are also
quashed. "

3. This Court had, after after
several hearings, passed an order dated
22.09.2022
putting
the
respondentcontemnor to notice as to why the charge
should not be framed against him for
having willfully flouting the order dated
31.03.2015 passed by the writ Court. After
hearing the counsel for the parties at length
and examining the pleadings of the parties,
an order dated 16.12.2022 was passed by
this Court disposing of the contempt
application and a fine of Rs.25000/- was
awarded and the opposite party/ contemnor
was
ordered
to
undergo
simple
imprisonment for a period of one week.
Thereafter, vide an order dated 17.01.2022
now the matter has to be heard afresh.

4. Ms. Radhika Singh, learned
counsel for the applicant submitted that the
order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the writ
Court had clearly provided that the
jurisdiction to assess the applicant at
Lucknow is conspicuously absent in the
income tax authority at Lucknow and that
the petitioner can only be assessed by the
assessing authority at New Delhi. She next
submitted that the writ petition had been
filed when notices for a manual scrutiny for
the assessment year 2012-13 had been
received by the applicant and the assessing
officer at Lucknow that is the respondentcontemnor did not pay any heed to the
objection of jurisdiction taken by the
applicant
and
proceeded
with
the
assessment
proceedings
threaten
to
complete the same by 30.03.2015.

5. Learned counsel 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 computergenerated 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
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 Lucknow had no
jurisdiction to assess the applicant, the
same officer i.e. the opposite party-Mr.
Harish Gidwani, Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax, Range-II, Lucknow revived the
notice dated 20.09.2014 which has been
issued
for
manual
scrutiny
for
the
succeeding assessment year 2013-14 was
revived and a notice dated 24.06.2015 was
sent to applicant at his New Delhi address
and again on 15.03.2016 another notice
was issued to the applicant threatening to
make an exparte assessment pursuant to
earlier notices sent in respect to the
assessment year 2012-13.
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. Learned counsel for the
applicant next submitted that written
representations were made to the opposite
party pointing out that he did not have the
jurisdiction to assess the applicant in view
of the orders passed by the writ Court on
31.03.2015, but the applicant was told that
the order of the writ Court was being
appealed against before the Supreme Court
and hence, the opposite party was not
bound to comply with the order of the writ
Court. Learned counsel for the applicant
thus submitted that the opposite party is
guilty for willful and deliberate contempt
as he was fully aware of the impact of the
order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the writ
Court
and
had
refused
to
ensure
compliance on the ground that the special
leave petition was to be filed before the
Supreme Court and in furtherance of the
said deliberation the opposite party did not
withdraw the demand which had been
generated in furtherance of the order of
assessment made by him although the said
order had been set aside by the writ Court
vide the order dated 31.03.2015.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for
the opposite party submitted that as the
Department had taken decision to file a
special leave petition against the judgment
and order dated 31.03.2015, the opposite
party did not commit any illegality in not
complying with the order dated 31.03.2015.
He pointed out that in paragraph 23 of the
counter affidavit, this aspect had clearly
been mentioned and only because the
special leave petition was not filed would
not mean that the opposite party had
willfully and deliberately violated the order
dated 31.03.2015.

10. Learned counsel 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 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
demand
stands
withdrawn
on
22.11.2022 and the said order dated
22.11.2022 has been placed on record with
the supplementary affidavit of Mr. Harish
Gidwani filed on 5.12.2022 and indicates
that the same was being withdrawn in
compliance of the orders dated 31.03.2015
passed in writ petition No.9525(MB) of
2013.

12. Learned counsel for the
opposite party next submitted that upon to
the jurisdiction being raised by the
applicant, sufficient opportunity had been
given by the opposite party and on
8 All. Prashant Chandra Vs. Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2
433
15.03.2016 the opposite party had given
further
opportunity
to
the
applicant
indicating that no application for transfer
of jurisdiction had been received by the
opposite party and the applicant had not
invoked Section 127 by moving the
competent authority to transfer the case to
some other assessing officer and no
application was made by the applicant to
transfer his case to New Delhi.

13. Learned counsel for the
opposite party next submitted that the
opposite party was the assessing officer as
the PAN database was showing his
jurisdiction in assessment year 2013-14
against which no order or direction had
been passed by this Court in the judgment
and order dated 31.03.2015 passed in Writ
Petition No.9525 (MB) of 2013. Learned
counsel next submitted that the initial
notice for the assessment year 2013-14 had
been given by the opposite party on
20.9.2014 and the applicant had not filed
any objection within 30 days of the
issuance of the said notice as is required
under Section 124 (3) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 and hence, the notice was valid
and
the
assessment
made
for
the
assessment year 2013-14 cannot be faulted.

14. Learned counsel for the
opposite party next submitted that new
notice issued was also valid as per para-6
of
the
AST
Instruction
no.115
of
Directorate of Income Tax, Systems, New
Delhi circulated vide letter F.No.DIT(S)-
II/CASS/2014 dated 02.08.2013 which
categorically says that in all cases under
compulsory scrutiny, notice under Section
143(2) will be generated from the system
only by the officer having PAN in his/ her
jurisdiction.

15. Learned counsel for the
opposite party next submitted that in order
to get the jurisdiction changed, an 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 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 apology to this
Court.

17.
I
have
considered
the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material on
record.

18. On its perusal, it is found that
the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015
passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition
No.9525 (MB) of 2013 is unambiguous and
clear and is not confined to any particular
year but lays down the jurisdiction of the
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authority in accordance with the provisions
contained in the Income Tax Act, 1961. The
Divisional Bench also considered the effect
of Sections 124 and 127 of the Act and has
clearly recorded that in case any objection
being raised in respect of the jurisdiction of
the assessing officer as has been done in
the present 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 under Section 124(2) of
the Act, 1961 and not doing so renders the
action of the opposite party illegal.

18. As regards the demand on the
income tax portal pursuant to assessment
made by the opposite party, I 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 judgment and order dated
31.3.2015.

19. The submission made by the
learned counsel for the applicant that the
writ Court vide the judgment and order
dated 31.03.2015 had decided the question
of jurisdiction and not of any particular
assessment year and also 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 partycontemnor, 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 201314 when the writ Court had recorded that
the Tax Authority at Lucknow do not have
jurisdiction to assess the petitioner at
Lucknow and passed an assessment order.

(ii) Why the opposite partycontemnor, Mr. Harish Gidwani, Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-II,
Lucknow be not punished for willfully
flouting the order of writ Court dated
31.03.2015 passed in Writ Petition (MB)
No.9525 of 2013 that local address was
inserted deliberately to create jurisdiction,
which, in fact, legally was not vested with
8 All. Prashant Chandra Vs. Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2
435
the
opposite
party
i.e.
the
present
contemnor.

(iii) Why the opposite partycontemnor, Mr. Harish Gidwani, Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-II,
Lucknow be not punished for the reason
that the outstanding amount was not
deleted from the web portal for several
years which amounts to deliberate and
willful disobedience of the judgment and
order dated 31.03.2015."

21. List this contempt application
on 21.11.2023 to enable learned counsel
for the opposite party-contemnor to make
submission on the charges so framed."

3. Ms. Radhika Singh, learned
counsel for the applicant submitted that the
applicant changed his place of business in
the
assessment
year
2011-12
from
Lucknow to New Delhi on account of
harassment being meted by the Income Tax
Authorities at Lucknow, the applicant
having businesses at Lucknow as well as
New Delhi.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that the change in the
official records were incorporated only in
the assessment year 2012-13 and a note to
the said effect was made in the official
records of the Income Tax Department and
the address of the applicant was shown as
that of New Delhi.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that as after change of
business, for assessment year 2011-12 an
assessment was made at Lucknow, the
same was challenged but the writ petition
was dismissed as by the time the
assessment was made, the official records
had not been corrected incorporating the
place of business of the applicant as New
Delhi. The Income Tax Department having
recorded the change in the PAN database,
an application for review was preferred
which is pending disposal before this
Hon'ble Court.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that a manual notice for
scrutiny in respect of the returns of income
fired for the assessment for the assessment
year 2011-12 was issued by the respondent
on 13.09.2013. The address in the official
communication which was recorded as that
of New Delhi, but is cut out by hand and
replaced by the Lucknow address.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that the applicant against
the
manual
scrutiny
notice
for
the
assessment year 2011-12 was made a
representation
informing
the
opposite
party-contemnor that he did not have
jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment
of the applicant on account of the place of
business having been transferred from
Lucknow to New Delhi, where the return of
income had been filed by the applicant. The
Delhi address of the applicant had been
duly incorporated in official records of the
Income Tax Department.

8. Learned counsel for the
applicant next submitted that as the
opposite party-contemnor refused to stay
his hands and continued with the scrutiny
proceedings despite categoric objection of
the applicant regarding jurisdiction, a writ
petition no.9525 (MB) of 2013 was filed
seeking quashing of the order/ notice dated
11.09.2013 which was allowed vide the
judgment and order dated 31.03.2015.

9. Learned counsel for the
applicant next submitted that the writ Court
held that after change of business from
Lucknow to New Delhi, the Income Tax
436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Authorities at Lucknow did not have the
jurisdiction to assess the applicant at
Lucknow. It was also recorded that in case
the opposite party-contemnor had any
doubt, all that he could have done was to
refer the matter to the Chief Commissioner
of Income Tax for a decision on the
question of jurisdiction but could not have
proceeded with the assessment. Sections
124 and 127 were specifically referred to
and it was finally laid at rest that there was
no jurisdiction with the Income Tax
Authorities at Lucknow.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that during the pendency of
the writ petition, an ex-parte assessment
had been made pursuant to the order dated
11.09.2013
assuming
jurisdiction
at
Lucknow. The said order was also set aside
by the writ Court vide the judgment and
order dated 31.03.2015. After the rendering
of
the
judgment
and
order
dated
31.03.2015, the opposite party-contemnor
issued a notice dated 24.06.2015 recording
the PAN number of the applicant and the
address as D 127 East of Kailash, New
Delhi manually selecting the applicant for
scrutiny for the assessment year 2013-14,
the return of income in respect of which
had already been filed at New Delhi.

11. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that response to the said
notice was submitted by the applicant on
5.7.2015 giving reference of the judgment
and order dated 31.03.2015 passed in Writ
Petition
No.9525
(MB)
of
2015
categorically pointing out that the opposite
party-contemnor
did
not
have
the
jurisdiction to select the applicant for
manual scrutiny of a return of income
already filed at New Delhi and that the
issuance of the notice was extraneous and
brazenly contemptuous.
12. Learned counsel for the
applicant next submitted that after the
submission
of
the
response
dated
15.07.2015 the opposite party-contemnor
maintained a cryptic silence and on
15.03.2016
issued
another
manually
prepared notice and not a notice taken out
from the official records in which reference
to the notice dated 24.06.2015 was made
but the address of the applicant was altered
by the opposite party-contemnor from New
Delhi to that of Lucknow, contrary to the
official records and against the same PAN
number. Seven day's time was granted by
him to respond to the notice issued without
jurisdiction
and
in violation of
the
judgment and order dated 31.03.2015.

13. Learned counsel for the
applicant next submitted that opposite
party-contemnor obstinately responded that
he was not bound by orders passed by the
High Court and he will get it set aside by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a SLP is
being filed. This assertion is contained in
paragraph 7 of the instant contempt
application
preferred
on
28.03.2016.
Response has been given in paragraph 23
of the opposite party's counter affidavit
dated 18.5.2016 containing a changed stand
that a proposal for filing a special leave
petition
has
been
submitted
duly
recommended by the contempt authority
before Supreme Court. No SLP was
actually filed. The respondent contemnor
has filed a false affidavit.

14. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that the assessment order
was made ex parte and the opposite partycontemnor did not refrain from proceeding
with the scrutiny assessment in violation of
the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015.
In the counter affidavit, the correctness of
the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015
8 All. Prashant Chandra Vs. Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2
437
has been disputed and submissions contrary
to the finding recorded by the Division
Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the said
judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 have
been made. Sections 124 and 127 of the
Income Tax Act have deliberately been
misread contrary to the finding recorded by
the Division Bench in the order dated
31.03.2015.

15. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that noticeably no remorse
has been expressed and no apology has
been tendered. It has been alleged that in
case it is found to be inadvertent mistake,
the opposite party-contemnor tenders an
apology, making it clear that if this Hon'ble
Court finds that the mistake was not
inadvertent but was deliberate and wilful,
no apology for the same is being tendered.

16. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that several affidavit have
been
filed
thereafter
to
justify
the
contumacious action by reference to
extraneous material which had not been
considered or were not in existence at the
time
of
committing
contempt
by
scrutinizing the assessment filed at Delhi
after selecting the applicant's case for
manual scrutiny. In the meantime the
opposite party-contemnor had allowed the
demand which had been set aside by this
Hon'ble Court to be displayed on the
income tax portal showing the applicant as
a defaulter and thus causing deliberate
harm to the reputation of the applicant.

17. Learned counsel for the
applicant next submitted that the demand
was taken down from the portal by the
opposite party-contemnor only after it was
pointed out to this Hon'ble Court in
November, 2023 that in blatant contempt of
the order dated 31.03.2015 the default had
been displayed on the official portal of the
Income Tax Department by the opposite
party. The default was continued to be
shown for a period of about 7 years and 7
months.

18. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that after several hearings in
the present contempt petition, it was found
that the action of the opposite partycontemnor in violating the judgment and
order dated 31.05.2015 was deliberate and
willful, charges were framed in the order
dated 1.11.2023. She next submitted that an
affidavit has been filed in response to the
charges framed against the opposite partycontemnor and the same submissions have
been repeated as were made on several
hearings before the framing of the charge.

19. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that emphasis was laid that
the PAN database indicated the address of
the applicant as that of Lucknow and as
such the opposite party-contemnor had
selected the applicant's case for scrutiny.
This is factually incorrect. The address in
the database had been changed.

20. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that notice issued by the
opposite
party-contemnor
himself
on
24.06.2015 to the applicant is at his Delhi
address calling for information for scrutiny
pertaining to the return filed at New Delhi for
assessment year 2013-14 and with meticulous
cleverness reference has been made only to
the notice dated 16.03.2015 which is not an
officially generated communication but a
notice prepared by the opposite partycontemnor himself by replacing the Delhi
address by the Lucknow address.

21. Learned counsel for the applicant
next submitted that the judgment and order
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rendered by this Hon'ble Court has
primacy and the plea raised as an
afterthought at a very late stage that the
representation given by the applicant on
July 5, 2015 had been referred to the CIT in
January, 2016 is not quite correct. The
respondent is not required to seek any
directions of any authority and has to
punctiliously and without any reservation
follow the orders passed by the High Court.
The CIT has not passed any orders contrary
to the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015
and the allegation to the contrary made by
the respondent is factually incorrect. No
such order of the CIT had been brought on
record. The respondent is guilty of criminal
contempt for having filed a false affidavit
knowing it to be false.

22. In support of her submissions,
learned counsel for the applicant placed
reliance upon the following judgments:

(i) Sebastian M. Hongray v.
Union of India; (1984)3 SCC 82

(ii)
T.N.
Godavarman
Thirumulpad (102) through the Amicus
Curiae v. Ashok Khot and another;
(2006)5 SCC 1.

(iii) Patel Rajnikant Dhulalbai
and
another
v.
Patel
Chandrkant
Dhulabhai and others; (2008) 14 SCC
561

(iv) Civil Appeal No.4955 of
2022
titled
'Balwantbhai
Somabhai
Bhandari
v.
Hiralal
Somabhai
Contractor (Deceased ) Rep. By LRS.
and others', decided on Spetember
06,2023.

23. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the opposite party submitted
that the opposite party-contemnor has
highest regard for the dignity and majesty
of this Hon'ble Court and he could not
even think of disobeying or violating the
orders of this Hon'ble Court. It is most
respectfully submitted that the opposite
party-contemnor has not disobeyed or
violated the judgment dated 31.03.2015
passed by the Hon'ble Court, in any
manner and no further proceedings for the
assessment year 2012-13 were undertaken
by the deponent. However, if this Hon'ble
Court considers any act of omission or
commission of the deponent to be contempt
of this Hon'ble Court, the deponent renders
his unconditional and unequivocal apology
for the same.

24. Learned counsel for the opposite
party next submitted that the aforesaid
contempt petition was filed in impleading
the deponent in respect of the alleged
contempt committed by him while he was
posted as Deputy Commissioner of Income
Tax (2), Lucknow. In this regard, it is
respectfully submitted that the deponent
joined the post of Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax, Lucknow on 9.10.2014 and
remained posted there till 09.06.2016 only.
Thereafter, he was transferred from the said
post
and
was
posted
as
Deputy
Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit),
Lucknow and was having no interference
or authority regarding the work of his
earlier post since he has already handed
over the charge of DCIT(2), Lucknow.
Further the applicant after serving with the
Income Tax Department on different posts
has ultimately superannuated from the
Income Tax Department on 30.06.2023.

25. In regard to charge no.1,
learned counsel for the opposite party while
denying the charge so framed submitted
that though the notice dated 20.09.2014 and
15.10.2014 u/s 143(2) were issued to the
applicant for the assessment year 2013-14
much prior to the passing of the judgment
8 All. Prashant Chandra Vs. Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2
439
dated 31.03.2015, but neither the applicant
has made any challenge, nor raised any
grievance against the said notice issued for
the assessment year 2013-14 before this
Hon'ble Court nor the Court has taken any
cognizance in respect to the said notices
which were for the assessment year 201314. Thus, the Hon'ble Court in its judgment
dated 31.03.2015 was pleased not to
consider or deal with either the notices
issued for assessment year 2013-14 or the
assessment of the assessment year 2013-14
in any manner.

26. Learned counsel for the opposite
party next submitted that there no violation
of Hon'ble High Court's judgment dated
31.03.2015 as deponent has not proceeded
against the applicant in any manner
whatsoever for the assessment year 201213 as per the mandate of the judgment. The
present contempt petition was filed for
assessment year 2013-14. There was no
objection to the notice on jurisdiction dated
20.9.2014 and 15.10.2014 raised by the
applicant within 30 days of the issue of
notice under Section 143(2) as required
under the provisions of 124(3) of the
Income Tax Act and these notices were not
even assailed in the writ petition No.9525
of 2013.

27. Learned counsel for the
opposite party next submitted that no notice
for assessment year 2013-14 was quashed
by the Hon'ble Court in its judgment dated
31.03.2015. Further, there was not even
any challenge made in the writ petition
regarding notices issued for the assessment
year 2013-14 which were issued more than
six months before the passing of the
judgment in writ petition no.9525 of 2013
on 31.03.2015. The applicant has not even
objected to the jurisdiction of the Assessing
Officer within the mandatory period
provided under Section 124(3) of the
Income Tax Act, which is 30 days from the
date of notice which was first issued to him
on 20.9.2014.

28. Learned counsel for the
opposite party next submitted that the
applicant was requested to submit an
application for transfer of jurisdiction u/s
127 of the Act during the course of hearing
in the assessment year 2013-14 to which no
reply was filed. There is no problem with
the Department in transferring cases from
one jurisdiction to another. But there is a
procedure which when followed, the
jurisdiction is transferred which procedure
was never adopted for assessment year
2013-14.