The Court dismissed a contempt petition filed by the Director of Income Tax against a donor and secretary. The Court found no cause of action as the prior order granted time to comply, and further statutory steps were available.
Contempt matter dismissed without prejudice to department's rights to proceed further with steps in accordance with law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936
Con.Case(C).No. 1396 of 2014 (S)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.4207/2014, DATED 17-02-2014
PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT :
K.RAMESH, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.K.OBAYYA, DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INTELLIGENCE AND CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION), KOCHI - 682 011.
BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER :
UNNIKRISHNAN B.,
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, SECRETARY, THE KOLLAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOLLAD P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 004.
BY ADV.SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
Con.Case(C).No. 1396 of 2014 (S)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.02.2014 IN W.P.(C).NO.4208/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
========================
C.O.(C). No. 1396 of 2014
-------------------------------------------Dated this the 17th day of December, 2014
JUDGMENT
The writ petition filed by the respondents herein challenging the course and proceedings pursued by the 1st respondent in the writ petition, Income Tax Officer (Intelligence) under Section 133 (6) of the Income Tax Act was disposed of as per Annexure A judgment dated 28.02.2014 in W.P.(C). No. 3532 of 2014 holding that, there was no merit in the writ petition. However, the writ petitioner was granted one month's time to comply with the requirement as sought for in the notice. Alleging that, the factual particulars sought for have not been furnished by the writ petitioners, the petitioner herein who is holding the office of the Director of Income Tax has approached this Court by way of this contempt matter.
C.O.C. No. 1396 of 2014 -2-
for by the departmental authorities. It is also stated that the respondents are having so many reasons to adduce in this regard, particularly, with reference to subsequent writ petitions came to be filed before this Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and such other events. Even otherwise, if the respondents herein did not satisfy the requirement pursuant to the notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Act, the next course to be pursued by the departmental authorities is to proceed with further steps, also issuing summons under Section 131 or otherwise as contemplated under the statute.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
kp/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether cause of action arises for contempt proceedings when a writ petitioner was granted time to comply with a notice.
Whether the contempt petitioner is entitled to relief despite the respondents citing subsequent constitutional challenges to the Notice Provision.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Ramesh
Unnikrishnan B.
P.R. Ramachandran Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
