Allahabad High Court Punishes DC of Income Tax, For Contempt, Imposes Fine With Imprisonment For A Week

The Allahabad High Court ruled that the outstanding amount showing on the web portal against the applicant/assessee was to be deleted immediately following the judgment, but the authorities allowed the outstanding amount to remain on the web portal for seven months, clearly violating the judgment.

The single bench of Justice Irshad Ali has imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 along with simple imprisonment for a period of one week on the contemnor who was the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. In case of default, the contemnor would suffer one day's further simple imprisonment.

The applicant/assessee has filed a contempt application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of a judgment and order dated March 31, 2015, passed by a Division Bench of the Court.

The applicant, by way of the writ petition, assailed a notice issued by the respondent/Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Lucknow under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with respect to the assessment year 2012–13. The applicant contended that the notice was de hors the provisions contained under Section 124 and had been issued in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon the respondent.

As per the judgment notice issued by the Assessing Officer, it was quashed on the ground of jurisdiction, and consequential orders were also directed to be set aside. The Assessing Officer has to take care that the entry existing on the web portal is deleted immediately after the passing of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2015

The petitioner contended that deliberately and intentionally, the outstanding notice of the assessment year 2011–12 became operative on the web portal for seven months, which ruined the reputation of the applicant. The act of the Income Tax Authority was deliberate and willful disobedience of the judgment.

The court held that there is an element of public policy in punishing civil contempt since the administration of justice would be undermined if the order of any court of law could be disregarded with impunity.

"Unnecessarily mens rea is not required to be proved in a case of contempt, but in the present case the violation is willful, deliberate, and coupled with intention and motive to harass the applicant," the court said.

Case Title: Prashant Chandra Versus Harish Gidwani Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Range 2

Citation: Contempt Application (Civil) No. 562 of 2016

Date: 16.12.2022

Counsel For Applicant: Advocates Mudit Agarwal, Anand Prakash Sinha, Radhika Singh

Counsel For Respondent: Manish Mishra

Click Here To Read Order