An informant does not have the right to file an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, or against an order refusing to initiate contempt proceedings. The role of the informant terminates once the information is placed before the Court, and the informant cannot maintain an intra-court appeal against the finding of the Contempt Court.

JUDGMENT :

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

Prayer: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 31.01.2020 in Contempt Petition No.2079 of 2019.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.01.2020, in Contempt Petition No.2079 of 2019, which was filed alleging that the learned Single Bench, on a misconception of the entire facts and misconstruing the order made in W.P.No.3929 of 2014, dismissed the contempt petition.

2. This appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The Registry, on scrutinising the papers, returned the same calling upon the appellant to state as to how the appeal is maintainable against the order dated 31.01.2020, in Cont.P.No.2079 of 2019 primarily on the ground that no punishment has been imposed on the respondents. What appears to have weighed in the mind of the Registry is with regard to the scope of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1971 Act”) and in the understanding of the Registry, an appeal is maintainable under Section 19 of the 1971 Act, only if there is an order of punishment passed by the learned Single Bench and in the absence of an order of punishment, the intra-court appeal is not maintainable.

3. We have elaborately heard Mr.N.L.Rajah, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.

4. A brief prelude of the factual position would be necessary, before we examine the correctness of the stand taken by the Registry as regards the maintainability of this appeal. The appellant filed the writ petition in W.P.No.3929 of 2014 to quash the order passed by the first respondent dated 15.01.2014, under Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the I.T.Act”) rejecting the petition filed by the appellant to compound the offence framed against him under Section 276C and Section 277 of the I.T.Act for the assessment year 2002-03.

5. It was alleged by the respondent-Department that when the appellant filed his return of income for the assessment year 2002-03, he has concealed an amount of Rs.2,26,38,372/- deposited in a foreign bank account and therefore, to be prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 276C of the I.T.Act. The appellant filed a petition under Section 279(1) of the I.T.Act for compounding the offence. The first respondent, after referring to the facts of the case and after hearing the Authorized Representative of the appellant, took note of the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 16.05.2008, wherein guidelines have been laid down by the CBDT with regard to compounding of offence under the Direct Tax Laws. The first respondent, in his order dated 15.01.2014, while rejecting the compounding petition, observed that the appellant cannot claim, as a matter of right, that the offence should be compounded; Clause (g) of para 4.4 of the CBDT circular dated 16.05.2008, states that the first respondent may consider any other relevant ground for not accepting the compounding petition. Further, it was observed that the appellant had effected cross-border transactions and if not for the information received from a foreign Government, the Revenue would have been put to great loss. It was further observed that though the appellant may claim certain infirmity in the nature of the evidence on which the Department relies, the fact is that the signature of the appellant tallies with the signature in the document and this evidence establishes major fraud, insofar as funds have gone out of the country and if not for the information obtained, the monies would have remained untaxed. Further, the appellant in keeping funds abroad, that too, in countries where banking secrecy law shield the investment, is also to be regarded as anti-national activity. Further, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the orders passed by the Revenue, vide order dated 25.02.2013