Bench Vs DR - ITAT imposes costs on CIT (DR) -Contempt Proceedings to follow
IN a rather unfortunate incident, the Delhi Bench of the ITAT imposed a cost of Rs. 1000/- on a CIT (DR) with contempt proceedings to follow. Here is the sequence of events as described by the Tribunal:
When the Bench set for hearing at 10.30AM on 20-11- 2013, to our surprise, none of the DR was present in the courtroom. It may be worthwhile to mention that about 33 appeals were fixed for hearing. With the current pendency an adjournment takes about 4 to 5 months' period for fixation of any appeal for next hearing in normal course.
Thus the situation before us as it stood, neither any DR was present in the courtroom nor any application for adjournment from the revenue's side.
At about 10.50 AM Shri D.K. Mishra CIT(DR) entered the courtroom in a huff and gave a vague reason for his absence that he was held up some where. Observing that Shri D.K. Mishra is now present, this 263 matter, which was to be argued by him was called out.
Shri D.K. Mishra straightway replied that he has not seen the file and not prepared the case. He was reminded that being CIT (DR), In-charge of the Bench it was not fair on his part to come late without intimation; don't read the file; not apply for the adjournment and make the whole process come to stand still. Shri Mishra then asked for more time to go through the file. In the interest of justice the Bench was kind enough to grant him time to go through the file. In the meanwhile the case of M/s Laksons Footwear P. Ltd. was also proceeded ex parte qua the department, as the Sr. DR was also not present and there was no adjournment application. It may be pertinent here to mention that vide order dated 20-11-2013 the Bench has expressed its displeasure towards the DR's of "D" Bench. After reading the file, Shri Mishra offered himself for the arguments.
After the assessee completed the arguments Shri Mishra replied to it. However, he wanted to cite the case laws whose names or citations neither he remembered nor had the copies of the citation. He contended that they will be filed in a day or two.
It was pointed out to him that it is not fair on his part not to remember the cases, the exact citation and the proposition laid down by these judgments. It was not a fair way to argue that the case laws not remembered by him will be submitted subsequently. He was told that in this situation how the assessee's counsel will counter the case laws which are not being given, nor properly represented and cited. It will not be possible to allow him time to file list, gist and citations of case laws subsequent to hearing which are neither heard by us nor put up to assessee for reply thereon.
At this juncture Shri Mishra in a malicious and contemptuous manner alleged that the "Bench is hurrying the justice and burying the justice”. Such type of unprovoked utterances from a Commissioner of Income Tax, who is the"D"Bench incharge officer from the Revenue's side came as a shock to the Bench and cannot be taken lightly. It appears that Mr. Mishra is not aware of his responsibilities, court discipline, procedure and proper court mannerism. His accusation on the Bench that it was hurrying justice and burying the justice is totally irresponsible, contemptuous and malicious allegation and totally against the glaring facts and proceedings which happened in the open court.
Out of 33 appeals that were listed, the Bench had granted adjournments in 31 cases mainly at the request of the ld. D.R., though the half heartedly written adjournments were filed by the department at about 11.30 AM on that day, which itself was against the prescriptions of ITAT Rules 1963. This demonstrates that Bench was kind and tolerant to the department despite these glaring irregularities. On one hand Bench tried to help and redeem the objectionable situation in which the department was put by Shri D.K. Mishra i.e. being not present in the court room, not filing any adjournment applications and least of all not putting any representative to explain all these anomalies. On the other hand to cover up his fallacies Shri Mishra ventured to pounce on the court by making such false, malicious and contemptuous allegations.
Shri Mishra was told that it was not the Bench which was hurrying or burying the justice but it was he who was obstructing the process of dispensation of justice. At the first instance he comes late in the Bench, does not come prepared with the case files, makes the entire court room and litigants wait without justification. The Bench showing kindness and in the interest of justice passes over the matter, after coming the CIT (DR) without remorse, says that he was held up and not studied the files, some time may be given, which was also given. Thereafter he was not in a position to cite the case laws and wanted to press his insistence that he will name, cite and give the proposition of case laws later on. He was clearly told that it is not the Bench which was hurrying or burying the justice but rash and contemptuous conduct of Shri Mishra which was obstructing the sacrosanct object of dispensation of justice. His contemptuous behaviour was proposed to reprimanded and fit to be visited with cost and appropriate consequential action.
In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances we find Shri Mishra's total behaviour as unfortunate, contemptuous and condemnable and deserves to be visited with appropriate action to inculcate sense of judicial discipline and awareness of responsibilities of duties and further to protect the dignity of the court, which stands offended by the contemptuous conduct of Shri D.K. Mishra.
After the Bench rose and retired to the Chamber of Sr. Member for discussion of the heard cases and signing of the judicial proceedings, Shri Mishra barged into the Chamber of Sr. Member without asking permission and threatened that the Bench has insulted him and that he is going to lodge complaint.
In order to pacify, he was offered to sit and have a cup of tea which the Members of the Bench were sharing. He did not show any response to this kind gesture being extended by the Members of the Bench. Looking at his hostile demeanour he was told that it was not permitted to enter in the Chamber of the Judges without intimation and hurl such threats of complaint to intimidate the bench. In our view his over all actions, behaviour and utterances amount to contempt of court. Any party to the litigation has no authority to enter the Judge's room without permissions and endeavour to intimidate and put up such threats.
In view of the entirety of facts and circumstances we have no hesitation but to impose costs of Rs. One thousand on the delinquent CIT (DR) Shri D.K. Mishra which should be deducted from his salary. The Registry is directed to forward the copies of this order to CIT(DR)-I, CCIT In-charge; Chairman CBDT for record purpose and take appropriate action including placing the observations in his service record at their end.
Separate and appropriate action for initiating contempt of court proceeding will be taken in due course after giving Mr.D.K. Mishra CIT(DR) adequate opportunity of being heard.
This is really an unfortunate and avoidable situation. The DRs in the Tribunal work under difficult situations compared to their counterparts in the field and they deserve all sympathy -at the same time, contempt of the Court cannot be tolerated. Anyway let us hope such incidents don't recur.
(See )