Allahabad HC’s Division Bench Grants Relief To Retired Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Sentenced By Single Bench In Contempt Case
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court granted relief to the retired Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax who was sentenced by the Single Bench in a contempt case.
The Lucknow Bench stayed the operation of the judgment passed by the Single Judge, Justice Irshad Ali.
A Division Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava ordered, “Bearing equitable consideration in mind, we stay the operation of the impugned judgment dated 09.08.2024 rendered in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 562 of 2016, Prashant Chandra v. Harish Gidwani, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Range - 2 sentencing seven days' simple imprisonment inflicted upon the appellant subject to the deposit of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- [Rupees One Lakh only] by Monday, i.e., 12.08.2024, before the Senior Registrar of this Court, who shall keep the said amount in an interest bearing account and shall intimate the compliance before the next date of listing.”
Advocate Neerav Chitravanshi appeared for the appellant while Prashant Chandra was the respondent-in-person.
Factual Background -
Harish Gidwani, former Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax filed an appeal before the Division Bench as he was aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Single Bench. He was sentenced with simple imprisonment of one week along with a fine of Rs. 25,000/-. In 2023, charges were framed against him. It was alleged that the respondent person changed his place of business in the assessment year 2011-12 from Lucknow to New Delhi on account of harassment being meted by the Income Tax Authorities.
Thereafter, an assessment was made at Lucknow and the same was challenged but the writ petition was dismissed as by the time the assessment was made, the official records were not corrected incorporating the place of business of the respondent as New Delhi. As the Income Tax Department recorded the change in the PAN database, an application for review was preferred which was pending before the High Court. It was alleged by the respondent that the IT Department deliberately disobeyed the 2015 order of the Court. Hence, contempt charges were framed against the appellant for not deleting the outstanding amount from the web portal for several years.
The Single Judge in view of the facts of the case had said, “Disobedience of this Court’s order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central pillar of the democratic State. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protect at all costs. Otherwise, the very corner stone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society. That is why it is imperative and invariable that Court’s orders are to be followed and complied with.”
The Judge found the appellant as guilty under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It was further observed that the fine only would not meet the ends of justice because the appellant was a senior officer, who was the custodian of assessing of the respondent and had committed a grossly reprehensible act and in case he is not punished, it would send down a wrong signal to other officials of Income Tax Department that even such unbusiness like conduct invites only a warning or fine, as Courts are flooded with matters, where orders are passed.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of sentence, the appellant was before the Division Bench. The Bench in this regard noted, “Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the appellant has however submitted that the judgment itself is rendered on 09.08.2024 and all prayers made before the Contempt Court to defer the immediate execution of the sentence and fine were turned down while taking the contemnor into custody to undergo the sentence of simple imprisonment for a week. It is this extraordinary circumstance placed before us as urgently calling upon to protect the remedial right.”
The Court observed that the verdicts of the Court of law must be adhered to and complied with in letter and spirit and the appellant may be aggrieved out of a harsh situation so to say, but at the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that a judgment having attained finality may be flouted at the whims and fancies of the authority bound by the majesty of law.
“Learned Counsel for the appellant is permitted to place on record a complete copy of the contempt application, replies filed in response thereto as well as the compliance report. We also permit the appellant/department to carry out the mandate of law, in the meantime, by giving all the benefits of the judgment dated 31.03.2015 to the assessee”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court listed the appeal in the week commencing September 2, 2024 and granted relief to the appellant.
Cause Title- Harish Gidwani v. Prashant Chandra
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Neerav Chitravanshi and Kushagra Dikshit.
Respondent: Advocate Radhika Singh
