M/s Gehna and Ms. Shalini Soni and Shri Upendra Kumar Soni and Shri Gordhan Lal Soni V. Shri S.L. Verma, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Kota

CCP/341/2018

AI Insights

The case revolves around a contempt petition filed against Shri S.L. Verma, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, for allegedly violating an interim order that prohibited the framing of an assessment order until the returnable date. The petitioners argued that the assessment order was framed in contempt of the court's order. The respondent countered that the interim order was not extended and the assessment was necessary to avoid statutory limitation issues. The court concluded that there was no willful contempt as the interim order was not extended and the assessment was made to comply with statutory deadlines. However, it was agreed that no further actions would be taken based on the assessment until the related writ petition was resolved.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798454 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: SB CWP No. 1982/2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANIL MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY JHANWAR; P KHURANA
• Keywords: Assessment Order; Contempt of court; Income Tax; Interim order
• Section: 153

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 341/2018 1. M/s Gehna, 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota Rajasthan, Through Its Partner Shri Upendra Kumar Soni 2. Ms. Shalini Soniw/o Shri Upendra Kumar Soni, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota Rajasthan 3. Shri Upendra Kumar Soni S/o Shri Gordhan Lal Soni, Aged About 52 Years, R/o 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, Kota Raj 4. Shri Gordhan Lal Soni S/o Late Shre Bhuli Lal Soni, Aged About 78 Years, R/o 456-A, Talwandi, Kota Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus Shri S.L. Verma, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-Kota Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Mr. P. Khurana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Order 02/04/2018 Contempt of the interim order dated 14.2.2017 in SB CWP No. 1982/2017 has been alleged in this petition. It has been submitted that despite court’s interim order dated 14.2.2017 that till returnable date, the Assessing Officer not frame the Assessment Order, the Assessment Order came to be framed on 18.12.2017. (2 of 5) [CCP-341/2018] Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar submitted that the framing of the Assessment Order aforesaid is therefore evident and clear contempt of the interim order dated 14.2.2017. Further the contempt stands exacerbated by the petitioner being pursued on the basis of the aforesaid order of assessment by the Assessing Officer and demands for payment of amounts assessed alongwith penalty are being relentlessly made to render the underlying writ petition itself infructuous. Mr. Anil Mehta, counsel for the contemnor submitted that the interim order dated 14.2.2017 was operative only till the returnable date i.e. the next date before this court. The said order was not extended at any point of time despite service on the respondents and despite 10 months’ elapsing. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer was running in the circumstances against the statutory limitation under the Income Tax Act for passing an Assessment Order in respect of Block Period 1.4.1996 to 17.1.2003 and Assessment Year 2003-04. If the order of assessment were not to be passed, that would have been contrary (3 of 5) [CCP-341/2018] to public interest and entailed loss of revenue for the State. It was submitted that the last date for passing the assessment order in the case at hand for the assessing authority was 31.12.2017 and in the event the order were not passed, the petitioners had the potential argument to the contrary – which he would never let go - that the interim order dated 14.2.2017 not having been extended, expansion of statutory limitation under Explanation to Section 153 of the Income Tax Act was not available to the revenue. It was submitted that for over 10 months following the interim order dated 14.2.2017, the petition was not listed in court. No doubt for which the petitioners may not be directly responsible, yet he was so indirectly it was his duty to pursue the matter before the Court and have it listed in court for further extension of the interim order, if he so desired. If the Court were satisfied post service of notice on the Income Tax Department and its opposition the order would have been extended and otherwise not. It was submitted that in the facts of the case, the revenue therefore finally moved an application on 5.12.2017 by way of abundant caution seeking clarification on the currency of the ex-parte ad interim order dated (4 of 5) [CCP-341/2018] 14.2.2017. The said application however was not taken up apparently for the reasons of the crowded docket of the Court. In these circumstances, faced with the prospect of limitation running out and possible argument being available to the petitioners based thereon, the order of assessment was passed on 18.12.2017. Mr. Anil Mehta further submitted that in the overall facts of the case, no willful disobedience of the interim order dated 14.2.2107 can at all be made out against the contemnor to warrant being held in contempt. It was submitted that however for reasons of respecting the order passed by this Court despite lack of clarity not obtaining from it not being extended for about 10 months of it being passed, he has instructions to state that no proceedings pursuant to the order of assessment dated 18.12.2017 will be taken by the revenue against the petitioner till any order to the contrary obtaining either on the stay application still pending in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1982/2017 or otherwise on the final judgment in the aforesaid writ petition. Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case, I am of the considered view (5 of 5) [CCP-341/2018] that contempt as alleged of the order dated 14.2.2017 cannot be attributed to the contemnor particularly when the contempt proceedings are quasi – criminal in nature and a plausible defence suffices for the contemnor. As it does in the instant case. However on the statement of Mr. Anil Mehta, it is recorded that further proceedings pursuant to the order of assessment dated 18.12.2017 against the petitioners will not be taken till orders to the contrary either at the interim stage or at the stage of final disposal in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1982/2017. Contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly. (ALOK SHARMA),J DK "