KAMAL KUMARI KHAN NRI THROUGH REPRESENTATIVE ASSESSEE MS. RENU SAHGAL vs. SH. RAJAT BANSAL PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
CONT.CAS(C)/69/2024HC DelhiDLHC01000993202407 March 2024Author: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the order dated September 15, 2022, passed in W.P.(C) No. 2003/2022, stood complied with. This finding was based on the submission by the respondent's counsel, who presented an order dated February 29, 2024, issued by the Income Tax Department, confirming compliance. The petitioner's counsel did not dispute this assertion. Consequently, the High Court took the order dated February 29, 2024, on record. The reasoning was that the contempt proceedings were predicated on the alleged non-compliance with the prior order, and with the submission of evidence of compliance, the basis for the contempt petition was removed. The operative direction was to dispose of the present petition as having been satisfied. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ms. Renu Sahgal, filed a contempt petition (CONT.CAS(C) 69/2024) before the Delhi High Court against Sh. Rajat Bansal, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, and another. The contempt petition alleged non-compliance with a previous order dated September 15, 2022, passed in W.P.(C) No. 2003/2022. The respondents' counsel presented an order dated February 29, 2024, issued by the Income Tax Department, stating that the previous order had been complied with. The petitioner's counsel did not dispute this submission. The High Court took the February 29, 2024 order on record.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated September 15, 2022, passed in W.P.(C) No. 2003/2022, stands complied with by the respondents, thereby rendering the contempt petition infructuous? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner initiated the contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with the High Court's previous order. The core of the petitioner's case was that the respondents had failed to adhere to the directions issued in W.P.(C) No. 2003/2022. Revenue's Contentions: The respondents, through their counsel, submitted that the order dated September 15, 2022, had been complied with. They presented a subsequent order dated February 29, 2024, issued by the Income Tax Department, as evidence of compliance. The revenue did not dispute the petitioner's initial claim of non-compliance but rather asserted that the situation had since been rectified.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 69/2024

KAMAL KUMARI KHAN NRI THROUGH REPRESENTATIVE A

SSESSEE MS. RENU SAHGAL

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahna, Mr. Mayank & Mr. Shiva Narang, Advs.

M: 7373900606

Email: rajeshmahna@yahoo.com

versus

SH. RAJAT BANSAL PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Sanjeev Menon, Junior Standing counsel. M: 9036335214

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

07.03.2024 O R D E R 1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has handed over a copy of the order dated 29th February, 2024 issued by the Income Tax Department. Thus, he submits that the order dated 15th 2. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. September, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2003/2022 stands complied with. 3. The order dated 29th 4.

February, 2024 issued by Income Tax Department is taken on record.

5.

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of, as having been satisfied.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J MARCH 7, 2024/kr

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →