Capl/562/2016 Of Prashant Chandra v. Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2

In Chamber/ Court No.5 Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:55105 Reserved Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 562 of 2016Applicant :- Prashant Chandra Opposite Party :- Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2 Counsel for Applicant :- Mudit Agarwal,Anand Prakash Sinha,Radhika Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Neerav Chitravanshi,Kushagra Dikshit,Manish Mishra Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J. 1.Heard Ms. Radhika Singh, learned counsel for the applicant andShri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the opposite party assistedby 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 SriAnand Prakash Sinha, learned Advocate and Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learnedcounsel for the opposite party assisted by Shri Kushagra Dikshit, learnedAdvocate. 2. The present contempt application under Section 12 of the Contempt of CourtsAct, 1971 has been filed alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of judgmentand order dated 31.03.2015 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WritPetition No.9525 (MB) of 2013 whereby the following direction was issued: "A perusal of Annexure SA-3 annexed with the supplementary affidavit dated31.3.2015 shows that in response to the notice dated 3.11.2014, the petitionerpreferred written objection to the Assessing Officer bringing to his notice thependency of the aforesaid writ petition and also apprising him that Section 127was not even remotely attracted. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the oppositeparty No.2 to have waited for the outcome of the writ petition, but he proceededwith the matter which shows prejudicial and impartial attitude of the authority. Itmay be noted that transparency and fairness is the essence of the state action.Therefore, the authorities are expected to proceed in disciplined manner withoutcreating any doubt in the mind of the asseessees. As averred above, it was theduty of the Assessing Officer to have referred the question of jurisdiction to theChief 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 furtherproceedings. Here, there is complete departure from the settled procedure. It comes out fromthe record that when the petitioner refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the saidAssessing Officer at Lucknow, the authority/respondent No.2 proceeded ex parteand dispatched a demand of almost Rs.52 lacs. At the cost of repetition, wewould like to mention that in the notice dated 11.9.2013, which is computergenerated clearly reveals that the Delhi address of the petitioner was scored outand 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 wefind force in the submissions of the petitioner that local address was inserteddeliberately to create jurisdiction, which, in fact, legally was not vested with theopposite party No.2. Therefore, the opposite party No.2 exceeded its jurisdiction,which not only vitiates the impugned show cause notice but the entireproceedings. In these circumstances, the entire proceedings being ab initioillegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of Section 143 (1) (a) of the Income-taxAct. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned noticedated 11.9.2013 is quashed. As the notice notice has already been quashed,consequential orders, if any, are also quashed. " say that the Delhi Address was not in the knowledge of the respondents and wefind force in the submissions of the petitioner that local address was inserteddeliberately to create jurisdiction, which, in fact, legally was not vested with theopposite party No.2. Therefore, the opposite party No.2 exceeded its jurisdiction,which not only vitiates the impugned show cause notice but the entireproceedings. In these circumstances, the entire proceedings being ab initioillegal, without jurisdiction and in violation of Section 143 (1) (a) of the Income-taxAct. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned noticedated 11.9.2013 is quashed. As the notice notice has already been quashed,consequential orders, if any, are also quashed. " 3. This Court had, after after several hearings, passed an order dated 22.09.2022putting the respondent-contemnor to notice as to why the charge should not beframed against him for having willfully flouting the order dated 31.03.2015 passedby the writ Court. After hearing the counsel for the parties at length andexamining the pleadings of the parties, an order dated 16.12.2022 was passedby this Court disposing of the contempt application and a fine of Rs.25000/- wasawarded and the opposite party/ contemnor was ordered to undergo simpleimprisonment for a period of one week. Thereafter, vide an order dated17.01.2022 now the matter has to be heard afresh. 4. Ms. Radhika Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the orderdated 31.03.2015 passed by the writ Court had clearly provided that thejurisdiction to assess the applicant at Lucknow is conspicuously absent in theincome tax authority at Lucknow and that the petitioner can only be assessed bythe assessing authority at New Delhi. She next submitted that the writ petitionhad 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 thatis the respondent-contemnor did not pay any heed to the objection of jurisdictiontaken by the applicant and proceeded with the assessment proceedings threatento complete the same by 30.03.2015. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that as per the officialrecords of the income tax also the applicant is an assessee of income tax at NewDelhi and therefore, the computer-generated notice records the New Delhiaddress of the assessee. She next submitted that scoring out the New Delhiaddress 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 petitionand passed an order of assessment which was also assailed by amending thewrit petition and the writ Court quashed the order of assessment. Despite thesaid order having been quashed, the respondent-contemnor did not withdraw thedemand which continued to be displayed on the income tax web portal for about7 years and 7 months and it was only after it was pointed out before this Courtduring the hearing of the application that the outstanding demand on the webportal had been causing grave humiliation to the applicant who was being treatedas a defaulter of income tax by financial institution and the credit worthiness ofthe applicant had also been seriously impacted which had deprived the applicantin several ways. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that even after the writ Courthad clearly provided in the judgment and order dated 31.03.201 that the taxauthority at Lucknow had no jurisdiction to assess the applicant, the same officeri.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 issuedfor manual scrutiny for the succeeding assessment year 2013-14 was revivedand a notice dated 24.06.2015 was sent to applicant at his New Delhi addressand again on 15.03.2016 another notice was issued to the applicant threateningto make an exparte assessment pursuant to earlier notices sent in respect to theassessment year 2012-13. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that written representationswere made to the opposite party pointing out that he did not have the jurisdictionto assess the applicant in view of the orders passed by the writ Court on31.03.2015, but the applicant was told that the order of the writ Court was beingappealed against before the Supreme Court and hence, the opposite party wasnot bound to comply with the order of the writ Court. Learned counsel for theapplicant thus submitted that the opposite party is guilty for willful and deliberatecontempt as he was fully aware of the impact of the order dated 31.03.2015passed by the writ Court and had refused to ensure compliance on the groundthat the special leave petition was to be filed before the Supreme Court and infurtherance of the said deliberation the opposite party did not withdraw thedemand which had been generated in furtherance of the order of assessmentmade by him although the said order had been set aside by the writ Court videthe order dated 31.03.2015. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that as theDepartment had taken decision to file a special leave petition against thejudgment and order dated 31.03.2015, the opposite party did not commit anyillegality in not complying with the order dated 31.03.2015. He pointed out that inparagraph 23 of the counter affidavit, this aspect had clearly been mentioned andonly because the special leave petition was not filed would not mean that theopposite party had willfully and deliberately violated the order dated 31.03.2015. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that the order dated31.03.2015 had been passed in the writ petition filed by the applicant assailingthe assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 and as such, the order dated31.03.2015 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 theapplicant had preferred writ petition No.1848 of 2014 which had been dismissedvide an order dated 27.03.2014. This Court in the aforesaid writ petition has heldthat main place of profession of the applicant would be at Lucknow for theassessment year 2011-12 and accordingly, the assessing officer had rightlyexercised power under Section 142 of the Act. Learned counsel next submittedthat every assessment year for the purpose of income tax is different and sincethe order dated 31.03.2015 had been passed in respect of assessment year2012-13 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 partywas not responsible for withdrawing the demand from the web portal of theincome tax and in any case after the same had been pointed out clearing thehearing of the contempt petition the opposite party was instrumental in gettingthe demand reflected on the web portal withdrawn by the present assessingofficer and as of now the demand stands withdrawn on 22.11.2022 and the saidorder dated 22.11.2022 has been placed on record with the supplementaryaffidavit of Mr. Harish Gidwani filed on 5.12.2022 and indicates that the samewas being withdrawn in compliance of the orders dated 31.03.2015 passed inwrit petition No.9525(MB) of 2013. 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that the opposite partywas not responsible for withdrawing the demand from the web portal of theincome tax and in any case after the same had been pointed out clearing thehearing of the contempt petition the opposite party was instrumental in gettingthe demand reflected on the web portal withdrawn by the present assessingofficer and as of now the demand stands withdrawn on 22.11.2022 and the saidorder dated 22.11.2022 has been placed on record with the supplementaryaffidavit of Mr. Harish Gidwani filed on 5.12.2022 and indicates that the samewas being withdrawn in compliance of the orders dated 31.03.2015 passed inwrit petition No.9525(MB) of 2013. 12. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that upon to thejurisdiction being raised by the applicant, sufficient opportunity had been given bythe opposite party and on 15.03.2016 the opposite party had given furtheropportunity to the applicant indicating that no application for transfer ofjurisdiction had been received by the opposite party and the applicant had notinvoked Section 127 by moving the competent authority to transfer the case tosome other assessing officer and no application was made by the applicant totransfer his case to New Delhi. 13. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that the opposite partywas the assessing officer as the PAN database was showing his jurisdiction inassessment year 2013-14 against which no order or direction had been passedby this Court in the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 passed in Writ PetitionNo.9525 (MB) of 2013. Learned counsel next submitted that the initial notice forthe assessment year 2013-14 had been given by the opposite party on 20.9.2014and the applicant had not filed any objection within 30 days of the issuance of thesaid 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 year2013-14 cannot be faulted. 14. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that new notice issuedwas also valid as per para-6 of the AST Instruction no.115 of Directorate ofIncome Tax, Systems, New Delhi circulated vide letter F.No.DIT(S)-II/CASS/2014dated 02.08.2013 which categorically says that in all cases under compulsoryscrutiny, notice under Section 143(2) will be generated from the system only bythe officer having PAN in his/ her jurisdiction. 15. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that in order to get thejurisdiction changed, an order under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961issued by the competent authority is required which was not complied with by theapplicant and as the objections were filed beyond 30 days, the same was notconsidered by this Court in writ petition No.1848 (MB) of 2014 and the same wasdismissed and it has been denied that for the assessment year 2011-12 theapplicant was assessed at New Delhi. 16. Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that after he passing ofthe judgment and order dated 31.03.2015, the opposite party has neverproceeded against the applicant for the assessment year 2012-13 and the merelychanging the principal place of profession or residential address in PAN does notautomatically change the jurisdiction of the assessment officer. He nextsubmitted that while passing the assessment order for the assessment year2013-14 the assessing officer had given opportunity to the applicant duringcourse of the assessment proceedings to provide any such letter or applicationfor transfer of jurisdiction, but no reply was submitted by him. He again submittedthat the opposite party has not violated the directions given by this Court videjudgment and order dated 31.3.2015 and no further proceedings for assessmentyear 2012-13 was initiated by the opposite party is found to have inadvertentlyviolated the orders of this Court, then he renders unconditional apology to thisCourt. 17. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for theparties and perused the material on record. 18. On its perusal, it is found that the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No.9525 (MB) of 2013 is unambiguousand clear and is not confined to any particular year but lays down the jurisdictionof the authority in accordance with the provisions contained in the Income TaxAct, 1961. The Divisional Bench also considered the effect of Sections 124 and127 of the Act and has clearly recorded that in case any objection being raised inrespect of the jurisdiction of the assessing officer as has been done in thepresent case when the applicant had referred the pending writ petition after theissuance of the first notice dated 20.09.2014, the opposite party should haveawaited the decision of the writ Court and in any case as the income taxauthorities are expected to proceed in disciplined manner without creating anydoubt 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 ChiefCommissioner or Commissioner as the case may be under Section 124(2) of theAct, 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 assessmentmade by the opposite party, I find that the assessment order for the assessmentyear 2012-13 was passed on 30.03.2015 during the pendency of the writ petitionand on the very next day the writ Court had passed the order on 31.03.2015. Thedemand generated pursuant to the assessment order was only after 31.03.2015and had been generated by the opposite party who had assessed the applicant.The opposite party, therefore, knowing that judgment and order dated 31.03.2015had been passed generated the demand. He, thus, acted in contempt of thejudgment and order dated 31.3.2015. 19. The submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the writCourt vide the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 had decided the question ofjurisdiction and not of any particular assessment year and also that each year assessment being different has no application in cases where the jurisdictionprima facie appears to be correct as this Court finds that the judgment and orderdated 31.03.2015 is not confined to any particular assessment year and hasgenerally recorded that the income tax authority at Lucknow does not havejurisdiction over the applicant who is assessed at New Delhi. This Court, istherefore, of the prima facie view that the opposite party is guilty of contempt ofthe orders dated 31.03.2015 passed by the writ Court and the opposite partydoes not the jurisdiction or authority to interpret the orders passed by this Courtby putting in words which are not contained in the judgment and order dated31.03.2015 appears to be willful and deliberate. 20. Considering in totalities of facts and circumstances of the case, followingcharges are being framed and the applicant is required to appear in person andanswer the charge of contempt on the next date of listing: "(i) Why the opposite party-contemnor, Mr. Harish Gidwani, DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Range-II, Lucknow be not punished for willfullyflouting the order dated 31.03.2015 passed in Writ Petition (MB) No.9525 of 2013and proceeded with the assessment year 2013-14 when the writ Court hadrecorded that the Tax Authority at Lucknow do not have jurisdiction to assess thepetitioner at Lucknow and passed an assessment order. (ii) Why the opposite party-contemnor, Mr. Harish Gidwani, DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Range-II, Lucknow be not punished for willfullyflouting 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 createjurisdiction, which, in fact, legally was not vested with the opposite party i.e. thepresent contemnor. (ii) Why the opposite party-contemnor, Mr. Harish Gidwani, DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Range-II, Lucknow be not punished for willfullyflouting 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 createjurisdiction, which, in fact, legally was not vested with the opposite party i.e. thepresent contemnor. (iii) Why the opposite party-contemnor, Mr. Harish Gidwani, DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Range-II, Lucknow be not punished for the reasonthat the outstanding amount was not deleted from the web portal for severalyears which amounts to deliberate and willful disobedience of the judgment andorder dated 31.03.2015." 21. List this contempt application on 21.11.2023 to enable learned counsel for theopposite party-contemnor to make submission on the charges so framed.” 3.Ms. Radhika Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submittedthat the applicant changed his place of business in the assessment year2011-12 from Lucknow to New Delhi on account of harassment beingmeted by the Income Tax Authorities at Lucknow, the applicant havingbusinesses at Lucknow as well as New Delhi. 4.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the changein the official records were incorporated only in the assessment year2012-13 and a note to the said effect was made in the official records ofthe Income Tax Department and the address of the applicant was shownas that of New Delhi. 5.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that as afterchange of business, for assessment year 2011-12 an assessment wasmade at Lucknow, the same was challenged but the writ petition wasdismissed as by the time the assessment was made, the official records [6] had not been corrected incorporating the place of business of theapplicant as New Delhi. The Income Tax Department having recordedthe change in the PAN database, an application for review was preferredwhich is pending disposal before this Hon’ble Court. 6.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that a manualnotice for scrutiny in respect of the returns of income fired for theassessment for the assessment year 2011-12 was issued by therespondent on 13.09.2013. The address in the official communicationwhich was recorded as that of New Delhi, but is cut out by hand andreplaced by the Lucknow address. 7.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the applicantagainst the manual scrutiny notice for the assessment year 2011-12 wasmade a representation informing the opposite party-contemnor that hedid not have jurisdiction to proceed with the assessment of the applicanton account of the place of business having been transferred fromLucknow to New Delhi, where the return of income had been filed bythe applicant. The Delhi address of the applicant had been dulyincorporated in official records of the Income Tax Department. 8.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that as theopposite party-contemnor refused to stay his hands and continued withthe scrutiny proceedings despite categoric objection of the applicantregarding jurisdiction, a writ petition no.9525 (MB) of 2013 was filedseeking quashing of the order/ notice dated 11.09.2013 which wasallowed vide the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015. 9.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the writCourt held that after change of business from Lucknow to New Delhi,the Income Tax Authorities at Lucknow did not have the jurisdiction toassess the applicant at Lucknow. It was also recorded that in case theopposite party-contemnor had any doubt, all that he could have done wasto refer the matter to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for adecision on the question of jurisdiction but could not have proceededwith the assessment. Sections 124 and 127 were specifically referred toand it was finally laid at rest that there was no jurisdiction with theIncome Tax Authorities at Lucknow. 9.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the writCourt held that after change of business from Lucknow to New Delhi,the Income Tax Authorities at Lucknow did not have the jurisdiction toassess the applicant at Lucknow. It was also recorded that in case theopposite party-contemnor had any doubt, all that he could have done wasto refer the matter to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for adecision on the question of jurisdiction but could not have proceededwith the assessment. Sections 124 and 127 were specifically referred toand it was finally laid at rest that there was no jurisdiction with theIncome Tax Authorities at Lucknow. 10.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that during thependency of the writ petition, an ex-parte assessment had been madepursuant to the order dated 11.09.2013 assuming jurisdiction atLucknow. The said order was also set aside by the writ Court vide thejudgment and order dated 31.03.2015. After the rendering of thejudgment and order dated 31.03.2015, the opposite party-contemnorissued a notice dated 24.06.2015 recording the PAN number of theapplicant and the address as D 127 East of Kailash, New Delhi manuallyselecting the applicant for scrutiny for the assessment year 2013-14, thereturn of income in respect of which had already been filed at NewDelhi. 11.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that response tothe said notice was submitted by the applicant on 5.7.2015 givingreference of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 passed in WritPetition No.9525 (MB) of 2015 categorically pointing out that theopposite party-contemnor did not have the jurisdiction to select theapplicant for manual scrutiny of a return of income already filed at NewDelhi and that the issuance of the notice was extraneous and brazenlycontemptuous. 12.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that after thesubmission of the response dated 15.07.2015 the opposite party-contemnor maintained a cryptic silence and on 15.03.2016 issuedanother manually prepared notice and not a notice taken out from theofficial records in which reference to the notice dated 24.06.2015 wasmade but the address of the applicant was altered by the opposite party-contemnor from New Delhi to that of Lucknow, contrary to the officialrecords and against the same PAN number. Seven day’s time was grantedby him to respond to the notice issued without jurisdiction and inviolation of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015. 13.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that oppositeparty-contemnor obstinately responded that he was not bound by orderspassed by the High Court and he will get it set aside by the Hon’bleSupreme Court and a SLP is being filed. This assertion is contained inparagraph 7 of the instant contempt application preferred on 28.03.2016.Response has been given in paragraph 23 of the opposite party’s counteraffidavit dated 18.5.2016 containing a changed stand that a proposal forfiling a special leave petition has been submitted duly recommended by the contempt authority before Supreme Court. No SLP was actuallyfiled. The respondent contemnor has filed a false affidavit. 14.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that theassessment order was made ex parte and the opposite party-contemnordid not refrain from proceeding with the scrutiny assessment in violationof the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015. In the counter affidavit, thecorrectness of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 has beendisputed and submissions contrary to the finding recorded by theDivision Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the said judgment and orderdated 31.03.2015 have been made. Sections 124 and 127 of the IncomeTax Act have deliberately been misread contrary to the finding recordedby the Division Bench in the order dated 31.03.2015. the contempt authority before Supreme Court. No SLP was actuallyfiled. The respondent contemnor has filed a false affidavit. 14.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that theassessment order was made ex parte and the opposite party-contemnordid not refrain from proceeding with the scrutiny assessment in violationof the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015. In the counter affidavit, thecorrectness of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015 has beendisputed and submissions contrary to the finding recorded by theDivision Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the said judgment and orderdated 31.03.2015 have been made. Sections 124 and 127 of the IncomeTax Act have deliberately been misread contrary to the finding recordedby the Division Bench in the order dated 31.03.2015. 15.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that noticeablyno remorse has been expressed and no apology has been tendered. It hasbeen alleged that in case it is found to be inadvertent mistake, theopposite party-contemnor tenders an apology, making it clear that if thisHon’ble Court finds that the mistake was not inadvertent but wasdeliberate and wilful, no apology for the same is being tendered. 16.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that severalaffidavit have been filed thereafter to justify the contumacious action byreference to extraneous material which had not been considered or werenot in existence at the time of committing contempt by scrutinizing theassessment filed at Delhi after selecting the applicant’s case for manualscrutiny. In the meantime the opposite party-contemnor had allowed thedemand which had been set aside by this Hon’ble Court to be displayedon the income tax portal showing the applicant as a defaulter and thuscausing deliberate harm to the reputation of the applicant. 17.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the demandwas taken down from the portal by the opposite party-contemnor onlyafter it was pointed out to this Hon’ble Court in November, 2023 that inblatant contempt of the order dated 31.03.2015 the default had beendisplayed on the official portal of the Income Tax Department by theopposite party. The default was continued to be shown for a period ofabout 7 years and 7 months. 18.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that after severalhearings in the present contempt petition, it was found that the action ofthe opposite party-contemnor in violating the judgment and order dated31.05.2015 was deliberate and willful, charges were framed in the orderdated 1.11.2023. She next submitted that an affidavit has been filed inresponse to the charges framed against the opposite party-contemnor andthe same submissions have been repeated as were made on severalhearings before the framing of the charge. 19.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that emphasiswas laid that the PAN database indicated the address of the applicant asthat of Lucknow and as such the opposite party-contemnor had selectedthe applicant’s case for scrutiny. This is factually incorrect. The addressin the database had been changed. 20.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that noticeissued by the opposite party-contemnor himself on 24.06.2015 to theapplicant is at his Delhi address calling for information for scrutinypertaining to the return filed at New Delhi for assessment year 2013-14and with meticulous cleverness reference has been made only to thenotice dated 16.03.2015 which is not an officially generatedcommunication but a notice prepared by the opposite party-contemnorhimself by replacing the Delhi address by the Lucknow address. 20.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that noticeissued by the opposite party-contemnor himself on 24.06.2015 to theapplicant is at his Delhi address calling for information for scrutinypertaining to the return filed at New Delhi for assessment year 2013-14and with meticulous cleverness reference has been made only to thenotice dated 16.03.2015 which is not an officially generatedcommunication but a notice prepared by the opposite party-contemnorhimself by replacing the Delhi address by the Lucknow address. 21.Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that thejudgment and order rendered by this Hon’ble Court has primacy and theplea raised as an afterthought at a very late stage that the representationgiven by the applicant on July 5, 2015 had been referred to the CIT inJanuary, 2016 is not quite correct. The respondent is not required to seekany directions of any authority and has to punctiliously and without anyreservation follow the orders passed by the High Court. The CIT has notpassed any orders contrary to the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015and the allegation to the contrary made by the respondent is factuallyincorrect. No such order of the CIT had been brought on record. Therespondent is guilty of criminal contempt for having filed a falseaffidavit knowing it to be false. 22.In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the applicantplaced 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 AmicusCuriae v. Ashok Khot and another; (2006)5 SCC 1. (iii) Patel Rajnikant Dhulalbai and another v. PatelChandrkant Dhulabhai and others; (2008) 14 SCC 561 (iv) Civil Appeal No.4955 of 2022 titled 'BalwantbhaiSomabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor(Deceased ) Rep. By LRS. and others', decided on Spetember06,2023. 23.On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite partysubmitted that the opposite party-contemnor has highest regard for thedignity and majesty of this Hon’ble Court and he could not even think ofdisobeying or violating the orders of this Hon’ble Court. It is mostrespectfully submitted that the opposite party-contemnor has notdisobeyed or violated the judgment dated 31.03.2015 passed by theHon’ble Court, in any manner and no further proceedings for theassessment year 2012-13 were undertaken by the deponent. However, ifthis Hon’ble Court considers any act of omission or commission of thedeponent to be contempt of this Hon’ble Court, the deponent renders hisunconditional and unequivocal apology for the same. 24.Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that theaforesaid contempt petition was filed in impleading the deponent inrespect of the alleged contempt committed by him while he was postedas Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2), Lucknow. In this regard, itis respectfully submitted that the deponent joined the post of DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow on 9.10.2014 and remainedposted there till 09.06.2016 only. Thereafter, he was transferred from thesaid post and was posted as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Audit), Lucknow and was having no interference or authority regardingthe work of his earlier post since he has already handed over the chargeof DCIT(2), Lucknow. Further the applicant after serving with theIncome Tax Department on different posts has ultimately superannuatedfrom the Income Tax Department on 30.06.2023. 25.In regard to charge no.1, learned counsel for the opposite partywhile denying the charge so framed submitted that though the noticedated 20.09.2014 and 15.10.2014 u/s 143(2) were issued to the applicant [11] 25.In regard to charge no.1, learned counsel for the opposite partywhile denying the charge so framed submitted that though the noticedated 20.09.2014 and 15.10.2014 u/s 143(2) were issued to the applicant [11] for the assessment year 2013-14 much prior to the passing of thejudgment dated 31.03.2015, but neither the applicant has made anychallenge, nor raised any grievance against the said notice issued for theassessment year 2013-14 before this Hon’ble Court nor the Court hastaken any cognizance in respect to the said notices which were for theassessment year 2013-14. Thus, the Hon’ble Court in its judgment dated31.03.2015 was pleased not to consider or deal with either the noticesissued for assessment year 2013-14 or the assessment of the assessmentyear 2013-14 in any manner. 26.Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that thereno violation of Hon’ble High Court’s judgment dated 31.03.2015 asdeponent has not proceeded against the applicant in any mannerwhatsoever for the assessment year 2012-13 as per the mandate of thejudgment. The present contempt petition was filed for assessment year2013-14. There was no objection to the notice on jurisdiction dated20.9.2014 and 15.10.2014 raised by the applicant within 30 days of theissue of notice under Section 143(2) as required under the provisions of124(3) of the Income Tax Act and these notices were not even assailed inthe writ petition No.9525 of 2013. 27.Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that nonotice for assessment year 2013-14 was quashed by the Hon’ble Court inits judgment dated 31.03.2015. Further, there was not even any challengemade in the writ petition regarding notices issued for the assessment year2013-14 which were issued more than six months before the passing ofthe judgment in writ petition no.9525 of 2013 on 31.03.2015. Theapplicant has not even objected to the jurisdiction of the AssessingOfficer within the mandatory period provided under Section 124(3) ofthe Income Tax Act, which is 30 days from the date of notice which wasfirst issued to him on 20.9.2014. 28.Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that theapplicant was requested to submit an application for transfer ofjurisdiction u/s 127 of the Act during the course of hearing in theassessment year 2013-14 to which no reply was filed. There is noproblem with the Department in transferring cases from one jurisdictionto another. But there is a procedure which when followed, thejurisdiction is transferred which procedure was never adopted forassessment year 2013-14. The said procedure was however, later on, adopted by the applicant for getting his case transferred from New Delhito Lucknow in the year 2019. The deponent after taking charge of the office of DeputyCommissioner, Range-2, Lucknow on 9.10.2014 issued notice underSection 143(2) in all cases as required by the statute. In the case of theapplicant, notice u/s 143(2) for assessment year 2013-14 was issued bythe undersigned on 15.10.2014 subsequent to the first notice issued on20.09.2014 by his predecessor to which nobody attended which isapparent from the order sheet and the order itself. It is blatantly wrongthat compliance was made on 26.09.2014 (six days after the date ofnotice). adopted by the applicant for getting his case transferred from New Delhito Lucknow in the year 2019. The deponent after taking charge of the office of DeputyCommissioner, Range-2, Lucknow on 9.10.2014 issued notice underSection 143(2) in all cases as required by the statute. In the case of theapplicant, notice u/s 143(2) for assessment year 2013-14 was issued bythe undersigned on 15.10.2014 subsequent to the first notice issued on20.09.2014 by his predecessor to which nobody attended which isapparent from the order sheet and the order itself. It is blatantly wrongthat compliance was made on 26.09.2014 (six days after the date ofnotice). 29.Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that noobjection to the jurisdiction was filed within 30 days of the issue ofnotice u/s 143(2) dated 20.9.2014. However, the Assessing Officer/deponent in good faith and gesture referred the matter to theCommissioner of Income Tax vide letter dated 5.1.2015 narrating thenon-corporation of the applicant. It is wrongly claimed by the applicantthat the matter was never referred to the Commissioner of Income Taxwhich was further transmitted to the Board. In view of this letter andsubsequent letters written by his successor the case of the applicant wastransferred u/s 127(2) vide order dated 21.09.2016. In compliance to theorder u/s 127(2) the then Assessing Officer transferred the case recordsalong with other miscellaneous records to the officer having jurisdictionin Delhi. 30.Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that underthe taxation law each assessment year is considered as an independentfrom the other and order passed for a year does not act as res judicata forthe other year. In this reference, it is relevant to point out that even theproceedings for the year 2011-12 were challenged by the applicant byfiling writ petition no.1848 of 2014. However, the Hon’ble Court afterobserving that since the applicant did not object to the jurisdiction withinthe statutory period of 30 days, the Assessing Officer has rightlyexercised the jurisdiction and hence, demised the writ petition videjudgment dated 27.03.2014. 31.Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that underthe online system of filing of Income Tax Returns, online return for anyassessment year can be filed from any corner of the entire country and a change of address in the PAN or even return filed online does not changethe jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer automatically from the PANdatabase, as alleged and therefore, since the jurisdiction to assess theapplicant was not transferred in accordance with the provisions of theAct, the deponent was having the jurisdiction to asses the applicant forthe assessment year 2013-14 even if he had filed his return with Delhiresidential address. Even the acknowledgment of ITR for assessmentyear 2013-14 shows that it was filed under the jurisdiction of ACIT,Range-II, Lucknow. Further, since as per the PAN database thejurisdiction to the assess the applicant was with the deponent, therefore,he was supposed to perform his functions as per the provisions of the Actunless the jurisdiction was transferred as per Section 127 of the Act,which is not the case here. Merely by change of address in the ITR or PAN would notautomatically change the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under theprovisions of the Income Tax Act. Hence, in absence of any orders of thecompetent court or the higher Authorities transferring assessment, he hadno other option except to pass the assessment order for assessment year2013-14 on 22.03.2016 as per the provisions of the Act as the matter wastime barring on 31.03.2016 in view of Section 153 of the I.T. Act, 1961which he did and hence, has not in any manner disobeyed or violated thejudgment of the Hon’ble Court. Merely by change of address in the ITR or PAN would notautomatically change the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under theprovisions of the Income Tax Act. Hence, in absence of any orders of thecompetent court or the higher Authorities transferring assessment, he hadno other option except to pass the assessment order for assessment year2013-14 on 22.03.2016 as per the provisions of the Act as the matter wastime barring on 31.03.2016 in view of Section 153 of the I.T. Act, 1961which he did and hence, has not in any manner disobeyed or violated thejudgment of the Hon’ble Court. 32.Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that therespondent joined the office of DCIT, Range 2, Lucknow on 9.10.2014and was functioning in accordance with the jurisdiction as conferred bythe Central Board of Direct Taxes/ Higher Authorities in accordance withthe provisions of Section 120(1) of Income Tax Act. The respondentdoes not have any power/ authority to transfer the jurisdiction of thecase of the applicant on his own and has to perform the function of theAssessing Officer and make assessment as per the provisions of the Actwithin time frame as provided under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act.Further, as the limitation for passing of the order was expiring on31.03.2016 and since there was no direction or order from higherauthorities or any competent court either for transferring the jurisdictionof the applicant or directing the deponent/ respondent to not to pass finalassessment order in the case of the applicant for assessment year 2013-14, there was no alternative left with the deponent, but to pass the orderwhich would have been otherwise barred by limitation on 31.03.2016.Therefore, the deponent has merely performed his duties conferred upon him by virtue of the provisions of the Income Tax Act and has neitherdisobeyed nor violated, much less deliberately and willfully violated thejudgment dated 31.03.2015 passed by this Hon’ble Court and thus, thecharge so framed by this Hon’ble Court is libale to be dropped againstthe deponent. 33.In regard to charge no.II, learned counsel for the opposite partywhile denying the charge so framed, submitted that the local address onthe alleged notice was never inserted by the deponent/ contemnor. Henext submitted that the subject writ petition was filed against the noticedated 11.09.2013, allegedly in which address was inserted, issued forassessment year 2012-13 which was quashed by the Hon’ble Court videjudgment and order dated 31.03.2015 and proceedings held in pursuanceto notice dated 11.09.2013 are related to the assessment year 2012-13. Itis also denied that the applicant has striked off the Delhi address andinserted the local address. 34.Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that thedeponent has not held any proceeding nor issued notice to the applicantfor the assessment year 2012-13, so it is not correct to say that thedeponent has inserted the local address to create the jurisdiction. 35.Learned counsel for the opposite party next submitted that theproceeding for assessment year 2013-14 were not the subject matter ofany litigation and proceedings were already commenced even prior tothe joining of the deponent on the post of DCIT, Range-II, Lucknow on9.10.2014. The details already provided by the deponent for assessmentyear 2013-14 have been discussed in detail in reply to charge-I. 36.Learned counsel for the opposite party categorically denied that inany of notices issued to the applicant the deponent has deliberatelyinserted the local address after striking off any other address. It issubmitted that since the deponent has issued notice as per the addressavailable in the PAN records to proceed with the proceedings whichwere already commenced before the passing of the order by this Hon’bleCourt. Moreover, the proceedings for assessment year 2013-14 were notsubject-matter of writ petition no.9525 of 2013. [15] 36.Learned counsel for the opposite party categorically denied that inany of notices issued to the applicant the deponent has deliberatelyinserted the local address a