Tanvi Jain V. Sri Satish Kumar Gupta Prin. Chief Commissioner Income Tax

CAPL/1450/2021

AI Insights

The case revolves around a contempt application filed by Tanvi Jain against the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, alleging non-compliance with a writ court order. The writ court had directed the applicant to raise her grievances through a representation to the Principal Chief Commissioner, who was expected to address the matter expeditiously. The applicant alleged that the opposite party failed to comply with this directive. However, the opposite party demonstrated that they had forwarded the complaint to the appropriate Vigilance Cell and had taken action, which was communicated to the applicant. The court concluded that there was substantial compliance with the writ court's order, leading to the dismissal of the contempt petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 795480 (HC-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Right to Information Act, 2005
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MANISH MISRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SACHIN UPADHYAY; SHIVENDRA RA
• Keywords: Contempt of court; Income Tax; Non compliance; Vigilance Cell; Confidential Records
• Section: 7(1); 19

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 18 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1450 of 2021 Applicant :- Tanvi Jain Opposite Party :- Sri Satish Kumar Gupta Prin. Chief Commissioner Income Tax Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Upadhyay,Shivendra Shivam Singh Ra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Manish Misra Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Sachin Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Manish Misra, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party that the writ Court by means of order dated 28.01.2021, passed in Writ Petition No. 2353 (M/B) of 2021, while disposing of the writ petition has provided as follows :- \"Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioner can be very well looked into by the higher authorities of opposite party no. 5. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise her grievance by way of a representation before the Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Mumbai Zone, Mumbai/opposite party no. 4 within a period of ten days from today. In case, such representation is moved, it is expected that the opposite party no. 4 will look into the matter and do the needful in accordance with law, expeditiously.\" 3. The applicant alleging non compliance of the aforesaid order has preferred present contempt petition. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the basis of instructions received from the Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax (HQ) (Vigilance), Mumbai has informed this Court that Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai has forwarded complaint of the applicant to the Vigilance Cell which is the competent authority to take action against husband of the applicant, who is alleged to have accessed the confidential Income Tax record of the applicant. It has been submitted by counsel for the opposite party that in the instruction letter dated 27.09.2021, it has been stated as under : \"Reply to Para 6, 7 & 8 - Ms. Tanvi Jain, the applicant, has stated that to her reminder letter dated 10.04.2021, she received a reply dated 04.05.2021, from the DCIT (HQ) (Vigilance), Mumbai, informing her that \"the representation dated 03.02.2021 has been taken on record and the needful in accordance with law is being done expeditiously\". In this regard, it is again reiterated that the representation of the applicant dated 03.02.2021 was forwarded to the Chief Vigilance Officer being Pr. DGIT (Vig.), New Delhi, vide letter No. PR.CCIT/Mum/Vig./Misc.11/Gaz.A/Pri.Jain/2020/2020- 21/362 dated 16.02.2021. Further, the reminder letter dated 10.04.2021 was also forwrded to the CVO vide letter No. PR.CCIT/Mum/Vig./Misc.11/Gaz.A/Pri.Jain/2020/2021- 22/50/45 dated 04.05.2021 (copy enclosed - marked as Annexure-2). Hence the necessary action mandated to be taken by the O/o Pr.CCIT, Mumbai, was indeed done expeditiously. It is further mentioned that the applicant had filed an RTI online vide Registration No. CCITM/R/T/21/000137 dated 19.04.2021, wherein the applicant had raised queries regarding the status of her representation and action taken by the O/o Pr.CCIT, Mumbai. In this regard, she was informed specifically vide order u/s.7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 dated 12.05.2021 (copy enclosed - Marked as Annexure-3) that the CVC is the Pr. DGIT (Vigilance), New Delhi, in the case of Group 'A' Officers to whom the representation had been forwarded. The applicant had also been informed that in case she was not satisfied with the above order she may file appeal u/s.19 of RTI Act, 2005 within 30 days, to which the applicant filed no appeal. However, the applicant has conveniently not brought these important material facts which are very critical for deciding this petition.\" 5. Considering the fact that matter of the applicant has been duly forwarded to the Chief Vigilance Officer and also that disciplinary proceedings have also been initiated as recorded in the order of the writ Court dated 28.01.2021. It is noticed that opposite parties have substantially complied with the order of the writ Court and now the matter is pending with the Vigilance Cell. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party has informed this Court that the applicant has moved an application under the Right to Information Act with regard to the steps taken by the opposite parties on the basis of the complaint and on 12.05.2021, the applicant has been duly informed about the steps taken by the opposite parties for compliance of the order of writ Court and documents in this regard have also been forwarded to her. Copy of the said information has also been furnished to learned counsel for the applicant. 7. Considering the fact that the opposite party has substantially complied with the order of writ Court, it cannot be said that the opposite party now runs in contempt of the order passed by the writ Court. 8. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. Notice issued to opposite party stands discharged. 9. However, it is expected that the opposite parties shall conclude the vigilance proceedings expeditiously and inform the applicant about the outcome of the same. Order Date :- 4.5.2022 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by ANURAG VERMA Date: 2022.05.10 15:58:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench "