Dr Maish Board Accountant Member Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Presently Posted At Pune Benches Pun v. Williamson Financial Services Limited A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956 And

GAHC010010322025 2025:GAU-AS:11765 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/269/2025 MR SANJAY GARG AND ANR JUDICIAL MEMBER, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRESENTLY POSTED AT KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 2: DR MAISH BOARD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRESENTLY POSTED AT PUNE BENCHES PUN VERSUS WILLIAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT EXPORT PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL PARK, PLOT NO. 1, AMINGAON NORTH GUWAHATI KAMRUP, ASSAM- 781031 AND IN 2:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GUWAHATI- 2 GUWAHATI AAYAKAR BHAWAN CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005.3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- III GUWAHATI AAYAKAR BHAWAN CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005 Advocate for the Petitioner : PRABIN KR. BORA, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ITD, Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/345/2025 MR SANJAY GARG AND ANRJUDICIAL MEMBER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRESENTLY POSTED AT KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA. 2: DR MAISH BOARDACCOUNTANT MEMBER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRESENTLY POSTED AT PUNE BENCHES PUNE VERSUS WILLIAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDA COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT EXPORT PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL PARK PLOT NO. 1 AMINGAON NORTH GUWAHATI KAMRUP ASSAM- 781031 AND IN THE INSTANT PROCEEDINGS THE PETITIONER COMPANY IS RE2:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXGUWAHATI- 2 GUWAHATI AAYAKAR BHAWAN CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- III GUWAHATI AAYAKAR BHAWAN CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005. ------------ Advocate for : PRABIN KR. BORAAdvocate for : SC INCOME TAX appearing for WILLIAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/346/2025 SANJAY GARG AND ANRJUDICIAL MEMBER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRESENTLY POSTED AT KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA. 2: DR MAISH BOARDACCOUNTANT MEMBER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRESENTLY POSTED AT PUNE BENCHES PUNE VERSUSWILLIAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES LTDA COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT EXPORT PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL PARK PLOT NO. 1 AMINGAON NORTH GUWAHATI KAMRUP ASSAM- 781031. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ADITYA KHAITAN.2:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXGUWAHATI- 2 GUWAHATI AAYAKAR BHAWAN CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE- III GUWAHATI AAYAKAR BHAWAN CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005. ------------ Advocate for : BARANYAMOY SARMAAdvocate for : SC ITD appearing for WILLIAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/400/2025SANJAY GARG AND ANRJUDICIAL MEMBER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRESENTLY POSTED AT KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA.2: DR MANISH BOARDACCOUNTANT MEMBER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRESENTLY POSTED AT PUNE BENCHES PUNE VERSUS WILLIAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD AND 2 ORSA COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT EXPORT PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL PARK PLOT NO. 1 AMINGAON NORTH GUWAHATI KAMRUP ASSAM- 781031. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ADITYA KHAITAN. 2:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXGUWAHATI- 2 GUWAHATI AAYAKAR BHAWAN CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE- III GUWAHATI AAYAKAR BHAWAN CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005. ------------ Advocate for : BARANYAMOY SARMAAdvocate for : appearing for WILLIAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD AND 2 ORS BEFOREHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMAHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI Date : 01.09.2025(M. Zothankhuma, J) ORDER Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. S. Chetia,learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. No one appears for therespondent No. 1, as no notice had been issued to the said respondent. 2:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXGUWAHATI- 2 GUWAHATI AAYAKAR BHAWAN CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE- III GUWAHATI AAYAKAR BHAWAN CHRISTIAN BASTI G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005. ------------ Advocate for : BARANYAMOY SARMAAdvocate for : appearing for WILLIAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD AND 2 ORS BEFOREHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMAHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI Date : 01.09.2025(M. Zothankhuma, J) ORDER Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. S. Chetia,learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. No one appears for therespondent No. 1, as no notice had been issued to the said respondent. 2.The applicants are seeking expunction of the adverse remarks andobservations given by this Court in the common judgment and order dated24.09.2024 passed in ITA Nos. 2/2024, 4/2024, 6/2024 and 7/2024. Theapplicant No.1 is the Judicial Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, whereas the applicant No.2 is the Account Member, Income TaxAppellate Tribunal. 3. The applicants’ counsel submits that the revenue had preferred an appealbefore the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, against the order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in respect of various assessment years,in relation to the applications of explanation to Section 14A of the Income TaxAppeal Act, 1961, which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2022, which hasretrospective effect. 4. The applicants’ counsel submits that the learned Appellate Tribunal, videthe order dated 06.07.2022, allowed the appeals of the revenue. Subsequent tothe order dated 06.07.2022, passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, the DelhiHigh Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. EraInfrastructure (India) Ltd, reported in (2024) 160 taxmann.com 92(Delhi), held that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022, pertainingto the explanation inserted to Section 14A would be applicable prospectively andcould not be presumed to have retrospective effect. 5. After the decision of the Delhi High Court, which has been made on16.07.2022, the respondent/assessee filed Misc. Applications, for rectification ofthe earlier order dated 06.07.2022, passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, onthe ground that the same was not in consonance with the decision of the DelhiHigh Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) (supra).Further, in another appeal that had been filed before the learned Tribunal,subsequent to the decision of the Delhi High Court in PrincipalCommissioner of Income Tax (Central) (supra), the same Tribunal had passed a decision in line with the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case ofsome other assessee/appeal. However, the learned Tribunal rejected therectification applications submitted against the order dated 06.07.2022 passedby the learned Tribunal earlier. 6.The respondent/assessee, who was aggrieved by the order dated06.07.2022 passed by the learned Tribunal, approached this Court by way of ITANos. 2/2024, 4/2024, 6/2024 and 7/2024. This Court, vide the judgment andorder dated 24.09.2024, disposed of the above Income Tax Appeals, on theground that the learned Tribunal could not have taken different views in respectof different appeals, by holding that the explanation inserted to Section 14A bythe Finance Act, 2022, would be applicable prospectively. While deciding thesaid issue, this Court made certain observations and remarks in the lastparagraph, which has been assailed by the applicants, on the ground that thesame has caused immense harm to the members of the Appellate Tribunal, as itcursed exertion on them, which affected the reputation as an unbiasedauthority. 7.The learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that though thelearned Members of the Tribunal had rejected the rectification applicationssubmitted by the respondent/assessee, pursuant to the judgment of theSupreme Court in another case, he was not going into the merits of the decisionpassed in the impugned judgment and order pertaining to ITA Nos. 2/2024,4/2024, 6/2024 and 7/2024. The applicants’ grievance was only with regard tothe adverse remarks/observations that had been made in the last paragraph ofthe impugned judgment and order and not with regard to the merits of thecase. 8.The learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that as the passing ofdisparaging remarks and unwarranted comments on the conduct of themembers of the Tribunal had caused great damage to their reputation indisposal of appeals for the administration of justice, the saidobservations/adverse remarks should be expunged. 9.In the case of Amar Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh andanother, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 491, the Supreme Court has held that aJudge of a superior Court however strongly he may feel about the unmeritedand fallacious order passed by an officer, is required to maintain sobriety,calmness, dispassionate reasoning and poised restraint. In the case of OmPrakash Chautala Vs. Kanwar Bhan and others, reported in (2014) 5SCC 417, the Supreme Court has held that when a Court deals with a matter,which is likely to affect a person’s reputation and caustic observations are made,which are not necessary, it can hurt a man. The reputation of a person shouldnot be allowed to be sullied with passage of time. In the case of PrakashSingh Teji vs. Northern India Goods Transport Company PrivateLimited and another, reported in (2009) 12 scc 577, the Supreme Court hasheld that it is settled law that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be madeagainst persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration beforeCourts of law, unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case as anintegral part thereof. 10. In the present case, the remarks/observations made in the last paragraphof the impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.2024 could be harmful to theapplicants, keeping in view the fact that they had made a decision, as they haddeemed it proper. 11. On considering the above, we are of the view that the last paragraph ofthe common judgment and order dated 24.09.2024, which is as follows:-“Having taken note of the above fact, while restraining ourselves from makingharsh comments, we can only say that such a conduct of the members of anauthority, which is discharging judicial functions, cannot be appreciated. Anyauthority discharging judicial functions is expected to maintain consistency in itsviews in respect of judicial matters because any unjust deviation may affect thecredibility of such authority.”, should be set aside 12.Accordingly, we expunge the last paragraph of the impugned judgment andorder dated 24.09.2024, passed in ITA Nos. 2/2024, 4/2024, 6/2024 and7/2024. It is made clear once again that the expunction of theremarks/observations made by this Court in the last paragraph of the abovecommon judgment and order, should not be construed as a comment withregard to the merits of the case. 13.The IAs are accordingly disposed off. JUDGEJUDGE Comparing Assistant