The Delhi High Court has dropped contempt proceedings against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) which were initiated suo moto for non compliance of Courts’ directions.
The bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that a judicial officer cannot be visited with penal consequences of proceeding in contempt, simply because he committed an error of judgment or the order passed by him is in excess of authority vested in him.
The respondent, Anuradha Misra who was working as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-3), New Delhi rejected the application for stay and directed the assessee to deposit 20% of entire demand in light of CBDT circular and its amendment.
The application of the assessee was disposed of by an order directing the assessee to pay 20% of the total demand, and observing that mere filing of appeal against assessment order cannot be considered as sufficient reason for stay of demand, and that the stay will operate on payment of 20% of the total demand.
The assessee filed a petition. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition opining that the respondent has not furnished any reasons indicating why the exercise of discretion cannot be in favour of the assessee for imposing a condition of less than 20% of the demand. The order was set aside and The officer was directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.
The officer passed an order stating that since the assessee has preferred appeal before CIT(A), as per CBDT Circular vide O.M. No. 404/72/93-ITCC dated 29.02.2016 and its amendment dated 31.07.2017, the assessee should pay at least 20% of the entire demand and after submission of challan, the application for stay of demand can be considered. Hence, the assessee is directed to pay 20% of total demand (balance 10%) in the case immediately, as mere filing of appeal against the assessment order cannot be considered as sufficient reason for stay of demand. The A.Y 2011-12 to 2016-17, it is evident that the financial condition of assessee is sound and payment of above demand will not cause any financial hardship to the assessee.
The order passed by the officer was again challenged by the assessee by filing a writ petition. The Division Bench observed that the order passed on 05.04.2019 is a mere reiteration of the earlier order dated 11.03.2019 which had been set aside by the Court, without furnishing any reason in terms of the Court’s order dated 29.03.2019. Accordingly, the Court formed a prima facie opinion that the respondent is actually in contempt of the Court’s order.
Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel for the PCIT submitted that pursuant to the direction in order, the PCIT had filed an affidavit. In the affidavit, the petitioner has given justification that there is no wilful
disobedience of the order of the Court. Without prejudice to the justification, the petitioner has also stated that if any displeasure has been caused to this Court on account of any omission/action on part of the answering PCIT, she tenders an unconditional apology with a prayer that the present contempt proceedings may be dropped and not proceed with.
Mr. Bhatia contended that the PCIT, who at the relevant time was working as Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Retd.), subsequently retired on 31.05.2021. The PCIT, during her service and even after her retirement, had been appearing on each date before this Court, but the present contempt petition could not be taken up for consideration after the respondent had filed her affidavit in terms of order dated 17.05.2019.
The court noted that the decision taken by the PCIT is not bereft of reasons, albeit, such reasons are brief and not elaborate. The order does reflect due application of mind on the part of PCIT.
The Court did not find that there is any wilful disobedience of the order dated 05.04.2019, or that the order has been passed by the respondent with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose, especially when the order has been passed in the light of CBDT circular, i.e., OM dated 29.02.2016, as amended by OM dated 25.08.2017.
The Court held that no case is made out to proceed with the contempt petition and the contempt proceedings are, accordingly, dropped.
Case Details
Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion Versus Anuradha Misra
Case No.: CONT.CAS(C) 506/2019
Date: 08.10.2025
Counsel For Respondent: Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. SC
Read More: Delhi High Court Allows Customs Appeal, Restores Case Linked to DRI Jurisdiction Dispute
