M/S. Shiv Mahima Township Pvt. Ltd v. Shri K.r. Sharma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANBENCH AT JAIPUR. JUDGMENT D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 12/2014INS.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 353/2014INS.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2790/2014 M/S. SHIV MAHIMA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD. VS. SHRI K.R. SHARMA. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 20.08.2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. Nirmal Kumar Goyal, for the appellant. BY THE COURT: This appeal has been filed by the appellant against theorder dated 12.08.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge wherebycontempt petition filed by the appellant-petitioner has been dismissed. The appellant filed writ petition challenging notice issuedunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act dated 14.03.2013 and ex-parteorder dated 21.02.2014 reopening assessment proceedings. The SingleBench of this Court, while issuing notices of the writ petition on12.03.2014, directed that reassessment proceedings may not befinalized till 21.03.2014. According to learned counsel for the appellant,despite knowledge of the aforesaid order, Assessing Authority haspassed re-assessment order on the very next day, i.e. 13.03.2014. He has argued that Shri Deepak Oswal, Chartered Accountant of theappellant sent an S.M.S. and also individually talked to the AssessingAuthority on telephone about the aforesaid stay order, but despite that,re-assessment order has been passed by the respondent. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the contemptpetition on the ground that the appellant-petitioner, on his own, hasmade admission that it did not serve copy of stay order dated12.03.2014 prior to 13.03.2014 and held that interim order dated12.03.2014 was not served upon the respondents in time before passingof ex-parte assessment order dated 13.03.2014. We are not persuadedto take a different view of the matter because mere sending S.M.S. orinforming on telephone would not be sufficient to attribute the intentionof the respondents of deliberate disobedience of order of this Court.Had the order of stay been passed in presence of counsel for therespondents, then possibly the appellant could argue so. No case ofcontempt of this Court was made out, therefore, learned Single Judgewas fully justified in dismissing the contempt petition of the appellant. There is no merit in this appeal, which is also dismissed. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL),J. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. Manoj.“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated inthe judgment/order being emailed.” MANOJ NARWANI PERSONAL ASSISTANT.