Shri Gordhan Lal Soni v. Shri S.l. Verma, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Centralcircle-Kota Rajasthan

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 341/2018 1. M/s Gehna, 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, KotaRajasthan, Through Its Partner Shri Upendra Kumar SoniRajasthan, Through Its Partner Shri Upendra Kumar Soni 2. Ms. Shalini Soniw/o Shri Upendra Kumar Soni, Aged About46 Years, R/o 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, KotaRajasthan46 Years, R/o 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, KotaRajasthan 3. Shri Upendra Kumar Soni S/o Shri Gordhan Lal Soni, AgedAbout 52 Years, R/o 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, KotaRajAbout 52 Years, R/o 19-D, New Colony, Gumanpura, KotaRaj 4. Shri Gordhan Lal Soni S/o Late Shre Bhuli Lal Soni, AgedAbout 78 Years, R/o 456-A, Talwandi, Kota RajasthanAbout 78 Years, R/o 456-A, Talwandi, Kota Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus Shri S.L. Verma, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, CentralCircle-Kota Rajasthan ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Mr. P. KhuranaFor Respondent(s): Mr. Anil Mehta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA 02/04/2018 Order Contempt of the interim order dated 14.2.2017 in SB CWP No. 1982/2017 has been alleged in this petition. It has been submitted that despite court’s interim order dated 14.2.2017 that till returnable date, the Assessing Officer not frame theAssessment Order, the Assessment Order came to be framed on 18.12.2017. Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar submitted that the framing of the Assessment Order aforesaid is therefore evident and clearcontempt of the interim order dated 14.2.2017. Further thecontempt stands exacerbated by the petitioner being pursued onthe basis of the aforesaid order of assessment by the AssessingOfficer and demands for payment of amounts assessed alongwithpenalty are being relentlessly made to render the underlying writpetition itself infructuous. Mr. Anil Mehta, counsel for the contemnor submittedthat the interim order dated 14.2.2017 was operative only till thereturnable date i.e. the next date before this court. The said orderwas not extended at any point of time despite service on therespondents and despite 10 months’ elapsing. It was submittedthat the Assessing Officer was running in the circumstancesagainst the statutory limitation under the Income Tax Act forpassing an Assessment Order in respect of Block Period 1.4.1996to 17.1.2003 and Assessment Year 2003-04. If the order ofassessment were not to be passed, that would have been contrary to public interest and entailed loss of revenue for the State. It wassubmitted that the last date for passing the assessment order inthe case at hand for the assessing authority was 31.12.2017 andin the event the order were not passed, the petitioners had thepotential argument to the contrary – which he would never let go -that the interim order dated 14.2.2017 not having been extended,expansion of statutory limitation under Explanation to Section 153of the Income Tax Act was not available to the revenue. It wassubmitted that for over 10 months following the interim orderdated 14.2.2017, the petition was not listed in court. No doubt forwhich the petitioners may not be directly responsible, yet he wasso indirectly it was his duty to pursue the matter before the Courtand have it listed in court for further extension of the interimorder, if he so desired. If the Court were satisfied post service ofnotice on the Income Tax Department and its opposition the orderwould have been extended and otherwise not. It was submittedthat in the facts of the case, the revenue therefore finally movedan application on 5.12.2017 by way of abundant caution seekingclarification on the currency of the ex-parte ad interim order dated 14.2.2017. The said application however was not taken upapparently for the reasons of the crowded docket of the Court. Inthese circumstances, faced with the prospect of limitation runningout and possible argument being available to the petitioners basedthereon, the order of assessment was passed on 18.12.2017. 14.2.2017. The said application however was not taken upapparently for the reasons of the crowded docket of the Court. Inthese circumstances, faced with the prospect of limitation runningout and possible argument being available to the petitioners basedthereon, the order of assessment was passed on 18.12.2017. Mr. Anil Mehta further submitted that in the overallfacts of the case, no willful disobedience of the interim order dated14.2.2107 can at all be made out against the contemnor towarrant being held in contempt. It was submitted that however forreasons of respecting the order passed by this Court despite lackof clarity not obtaining from it not being extended for about 10months of it being passed, he has instructions to state that noproceedings pursuant to the order of assessment dated18.12.2017 will be taken by the revenue against the petitioner tillany order to the contrary obtaining either on the stay application still pending in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1982/2017 or otherwiseon the final judgment in the aforesaid writ petition. Having heard counsel for the parties and taking intoconsideration the facts of the case, I am of the considered view that contempt as alleged of the order dated 14.2.2017 cannot be attributed to the contemnor particularly when the contemptproceedings are quasi – criminal in nature and a plausible defencesuffices for the contemnor. As it does in the instant case. Howeveron the statement of Mr. Anil Mehta, it is recorded that furtherproceedings pursuant to the order of assessment dated18.12.2017 against the petitioners will not be taken till orders tothe contrary either at the interim stage or at the stage of finaldisposal in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1982/2017. Contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly. (ALOK SHARMA),J DK