JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent/contemnor for the contempt committed of the order passed by this Court dated 04.01.2019 in WMP(MD)No.82 of 2019 in WP(MD)No.109 of 2019.)

1. The petitioner herein filed WP(MD)No.109 of 2019 challenging the order dated 29.11.2018 PAN : ADSPG8325M/CC-1/MDU/2018-19 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Madurai (I/C), Madurai in respect of the assessment year 2015-16. This Court vide order dated 04.01.2019 in WMP(MD)No.82 of 2019 had granted interim stay of the operation of the said order. There is no dispute that the interim stay is still in operation. In the meanwhile, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Madurai issued notice of demand under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 23.03.2020 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,57,360/-. According to the petitioner, issuance of the said notice of demand constitutes a willful breach of the interim order granted by this Court.

2. Statutory notice was issued and the contemnor appeared before this Court and filed an affidavit justifying the issuance of the said notice of demand.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the said notice of demand was issued even before filing of an application for vacating the interim order of stay granted by this Court. He pointed out that the petitioner was originally slapped with an assessment order dated 31.12.2016 in respect of the assessment year 2015-16. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai. The appellate authority passed an order dated 14.09.2018 partly allowing the petitioner's appeal. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax thereafter passed the order dated 29.11.2018 purporting to give effect to the order of the appellate authority.

4. The stand of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the said order dated 29.11.2018 had been passed without noticing that the appellate authority had granted 100% deduction under Section 80-1B (11-C) and without taking note of the fact that the petitioner had been granted tax holiday for five years. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that only on 05.08.2019, the contemnor filed the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal with an application to condone the delay of 235 days in filing the appeal. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the contemnor had suppressed material facts while filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The contemnor had not disclosed the fact of the pendency of the writ petition. The outcome of such an appeal would have a direct bearing on the outcome of the writ petition filed before this Court. According to him, after purporting to give effect to the order of the appellate authority, when the petitioner had challenged the resultant order, the question of filing an appeal challenging the appellate authority's order will not arise at all. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the very act of filing the appeal is contumacious. He also would submit that this Court had granted an unconditional interim stay of all further proceedings. Therefore, the contemnor ought not to have issued the impugned notice of demand. He would further contend that when the petitioner applied for rectification in respect of the orders passed by the subsequent assessment orders by invoking Section 115JC, the contemnor summarily rejected the same by stating that the said statutory provision is very much applicable to the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel would point out that the applicability of the said provision is pending before this Court and when by a reasoned order this Court had granted interim stay, a contra view could not have been expressed by the contemnor. The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the decisions reported in 2005 SCC Online Guj 423, (2014) 1 SCC 674, (20