Shayama Kant Sahay V. The Union of India through Mr. Sunil Mitra, Secretary of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariate, New Delhi 110001 and Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Chairman, The Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, through Secretary and Mr. V. Balgopal, Joint Director (Administration), Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 110001 and Mr. Takeshwar Singh, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna

MJC/1981/2011

AI Insights

The case involves Shayama Kant Sahay, the petitioner, who had filed three appeals in 1978, 1983, and 1985 before the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which remained unresolved for over 26 years. The Writ Court had previously directed the respondents to dispose of these appeals within three months. However, the respondents claimed that the records were not traceable due to the passage of time and other unknown reasons. The petitioner, now aged about 90 and suffering from several ailments, including prostate gland cancer, faced difficulties in collecting the necessary documents to aid in the reconstruction of the appeal records. The court, acknowledging the limitations of its contempt jurisdiction and the unintentional nature of the respondents' inability to produce the records, suggested a collaborative approach to reconstruct the records. The petitioner agreed to either provide available documents or prepare new memos of the appeals, which the court directed the authorities to treat as the basis for final disposal of the appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803473 (HC-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MITHILESH KUMAR; SHIV KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH KATERYAR
• Keywords: Appeals pending; Contempt of court; Record reconstruction; Contingent jurisdiction

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1981 of 2011 ====================================================== Shayama Kant Sahay, S/o Late Raj Kishore Narayan Lal, resident of village/Mohalla – Aghoria Bazar, Behind Girdhari Cold Store, P.O. Ramna, P.S. Kazimohammadpur, District – Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through Mr. Sunil Mitra, Secretary of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Central Secretariate, New Delhi 110001. 2. Mr. Sudhir Chandra, Chairman, The Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, through Secretary. 3. Mr. V. Balgopal, Joint Director (Administration), Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 110001. 4. Mr. Takeshwar Singh, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Mohan Kateryar, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Rai, Sr. C.G.C. Mr. Shiv Kumar, C.G.C. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH) 08/ 03-02-2012 Heard the parties. From the order of the Writ Court dated 18.11.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 18206 of 2010 it is evident that three appeals filed by the petitioner in the year 1978, 1983 and 1985 before the Central Board of Direct Taxes have not been disposed of and since they were pending for more than 26 years, the Writ Court directed the respondents to dispose of the said appeals within three months. In the show cause the opposite parties have taken the Patna High Court MJC No.1981 of 2011 (8) dt.03-02-2012 2/3 stand that due to lapse of time and for reasons not known to the authorities, the records of those three appeals are not traceable and in absence of any material before the authorities, in spite of their best intentions they are unable to dispose of the appeals. In view of such plea on behalf of the opposite parties, we had sought co-operation of the petitioner for reconstructing the records of the appeals. Though a reply to the show cause, the petitioner has expressed his difficulties in collecting the papers as he is now aged about 90 years and is suffering from several diseases including prostrate gland cancer. In contempt jurisdiction this Court has limited options. Had the opposite parties been guilty of deliberate disobedience of the order of Writ Court, we would have tried them for contempt and punished them suitably. But there is no good reason as to why they will keep the papers of the appeals concealed and take a false plea that the papers are not traceable. The opposite parties had the better option of disposing of the appeals one way or the other if the records had been available. Hence, we have no good reason to disbelieve the stand taken by the opposite parties. At this stage on our suggestion learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner shall make all efforts Patna High Court MJC No.1981 of 2011 (8) dt.03-02-2012 3/3 either to collect the copies of the appeals if it is available at any source and help the authorities by providing those papers or else with the help of relevant documents the petitioner shall prepare fresh memo of appeals which should be accepted as memo of the pending appeals for the purpose of final disposal. In view of such stand on behalf of the petitioner, we direct the authorities that as soon as petitioner submits the papers available with him either by way of copy of the earlier memo of appeals or freshly prepared memo of appeals which shall be treated to be memo of the pending appeals, the opposite parties shall proceed to dispose of the appeals on the basis of available materials within six weeks from the date of receipt of the papers and the result of the appeals shall be immediately communicated to the petitioner without any delay. The contempt petition is disposed of. DKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J) . "