The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the departmental action against the income tax officials as the cheque for refund issued by income tax dept. bounced despite the court’s clear directions.
The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth has observed that the concerned officers, who were holding the helms of affairs at that relevant time in the concerned offices, and their subordinates, have tried to mislead the Court. The departmental action, therefore, is required to be taken against them.
Table of Contents
Background
Although, on 20.09.2024, the court had disposed of application bearing regarding non-compliance of the Court’s orders when it found that the cheque for refund has already been issued to the petitioner-assessee.
The court directed the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax at Chandigarh to circulate and direct his subordinate Officers and Commissioners at various Divisions to comply with the directions, but the case had to be taken up again as the cheque issued by the respondent-Department was bounced.
The court directed the Principal Chief Commissioner Income Tax to remain present in the Court along with the concerned officers.
The affidavit has been filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak stating that the amount has been deposited in the account of the petitioner-assessee and the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, willful or malicious.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak has also tendered unconditional and unqualified apology for the delay and has ensured that such situation would not arise in future. The said affidavit is taken on record.
The Department has also invited our attention to a circular dated 25.09.2024 issued by the office of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, North Western Region for compliance with the orders passed by the Court and for issuing of warning to be careful and vigilant in complying with the Court’s order.
Ms. Jeotsnaa Johri, has assumed the charge of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak on 17.09.2024 and on reviewing the case records she came to know about the order passed by the Court. In the affidavit, she further deposed that the bouncing of the cheque was an inadvertent mistake which happened on account of there being a confusion between the bank and the respondent-Department and the compliance has now been made immediately after order has been passed by the Court.
Conclusion – Departmental Action
The court while taking into consideration that the deponent-Ms. Jeotsnaa Johri has joined only on 17.09.2024 as the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak, proposed not to take any action against her personally, however, the court expected her to be careful and vigilant in future.
The court remarked that once the Officer assumes charge of any office, he or she is required to have full information relating to the pending cases in the Court, orders passed by the Court and whether they have been complied with or not.
“We are amazed about the method and manner in which the proceedings were taken up by the respondent-Department in the present case. We noticed that the High Court on 07.12.2023 had recorded the assurance of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Sonepat wherein an unconditional apology was submitted assuring that there shall not be any repetition of such actions stating that the necessary rectification order has been passed on 30.11.2023, but inspite of such assurance, no action was taken for refund of the amount to the petitioner-assessee and we perforce to initiate contempt proceedings on 04.09.2024,” the court remarked.
The court called for the compliance report by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, North Western Region with regard to action taken against the concerned officers, within a period of four weeks.
Case Details
Case Title: Suvidhi Udyog Private Limited V/S National Faceless Assessment Centre And Others
Case No.: CM-213-CWP-2024 and CM-214-CWP-2024 in/and CWP-8976-2022
Date: October 3, 2024
Counsel For Petitioner: Mukul Panpher
Counsel For Respondent: Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel
