Suvidhi Udyog Private Limited Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre and Others (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Punjab and Haryana High Court held 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.
Facts- Although, on 20.09.2024, we had disposed of application regarding non-compliance of the Court’s orders when we found that the cheque for refund has already been issued to the petitioner-assessee and we further 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 said cheque issued by the respondent-Department was bounced.
Conclusion- Held that taking into consideration that the deponent-Ms. Jeotsnaa Johri has joined only on 17.09.2024 as the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak, we propose not to take any action against her personally, however, we expect her to be careful and vigilant in future and it is expected 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. However, 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. Thus, it is apparent that 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.
