IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Case (C) No. 205 of 2010 M/s National Petroleum Construction Company …Petitioner Versus Mrs. Anshu Shukla Pandey The Additional Director of Income Tax …Respondent Mr. S.C. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate Assisted by Mr. P.R. Mullick, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner for non-compliance of order dated 24th December 2009 passed by this Court, which was subsequently, modified on 1st July 2010. It is worthwhile to reproduce the initial interim order passed by this Court on 24th December 2009:- “Mr. S.C. Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P.r. Mullick, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the respondents. Counter affidavit to be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit to be filed within two weeks thereafter. List this matter on 9.2.2010 in the daily cause list. Meanwhile the assessing authority shall proceed with the reassessment of the matter under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. 2 However, the orders passed therein shall not be given effect to except by leave of this Court.” The order dated 24th December 2009 was modified by this Court on 1st July 2010 to the extent that Assessing Officer shall not pass final assessment order till the next date of listing, other proceedings may go on. The interim order was extended till the next date of hearing on 12th August 2010 and it was further extended till 10th September 2010. On 18th September 2010 this Court directed that interim order, if any, to continue till the disposal of the writ petition. In spite of order dated 1st July 2010 and order dated 18th September 2010 passed by this Court, the Assessing Authority passed the final assessment order on 29th October 2010 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act and demand of notice under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act was also directed to be issued, thus the Assessing Authority has clearly violated the order passed by this Court. In paragraph-3 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated that the deponent has deep and profound respect for the Court and puts directions and orders of the Court in the zone of highest commandments and has further tendered unconditional apology, if there had been any unintentional and inadvertent interpretation of this Court’s order. It is further stated that the deponent was trapped and was put into dilemma on account of letter 3 dated 8th October 2010 written by the petitioner. It is further stated that in compliance of this Court’s order the demand notice issued in pursuance of final assessment order dated 29th October 2010 has not been enforced till date. The deponent specifically stated that order dated 29th October 2010 will not be given effect to until the disposal of the writ petition or leave of this Court and again the deponent has tendered unconditional apology. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is of course clear that the final order has been passed in violation of the stay order having been passed by this Court on 1st July 2010 directing the Assessing Authority not to pass the final assessment order. In her reply, the deponent has clearly stated that final assessment order has not been given effect to. In view of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent that no effect has been given to the final assessment order dated 29.10.2010 and that demand notice is also not enforced, further contempt proceedings are dropped. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) VKG 27.12.2010