Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/8 vs Williamson Financial Services Limited on 1 September, 2025
Author: M. Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010010322025
2025:GAU-AS:11765
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/269/2025
MR SANJAY GARG AND ANR
JUDICIAL MEMBER, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRESENTLY
POSTED AT KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA.
2: DR MAISH BOARD
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRESENTLY POSTED AT PUNE BENCHES PUN
VERSUS
WILLIAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT EXPORT PROMOTION
INDUSTRIAL PARK, PLOT NO. 1, AMINGAON NORTH GUWAHATI KAMRUP,
ASSAM- 781031 AND IN
2:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
GUWAHATI- 2 GUWAHATI
AAYAKAR BHAWAN
CHRISTIAN BASTI
G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005.
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE- III
GUWAHATI
AAYAKAR BHAWAN
CHRISTIAN BASTI
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI- 781005
Advocate for the Petitioner : PRABIN KR. BORA,
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ITD,
Page No.# 2/8
Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/345/2025
MR SANJAY GARG AND ANR
JUDICIAL MEMBER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRESENTLY POSTED AT KOLKATA BENCHES
KOLKATA.
2: DR MAISH BOARD
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRESENTLY POSTED AT PUNE BENCHES PUNE
VERSUS
WILLIAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT
1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT EXPORT
PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL PARK
PLOT NO. 1
AMINGAON NORTH GUWAHATI KAMRUP
ASSAM- 781031 AND IN THE INSTANT PROCEEDINGS
THE PETITIONER COMPANY IS RE
2:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
GUWAHATI- 2 GUWAHATI
AAYAKAR BHAWAN
CHRISTIAN BASTI
G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005.
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE- III GUWAHATI
AAYAKAR BHAWAN
CHRISTIAN BASTI
G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005.
------------
Advocate for : PRABIN KR. BORA
Advocate for : SC
INCOME TAX appearing for WILLIAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/346/2025
SANJAY GARG AND ANR
JUDICIAL MEMBER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRESENTLY POSTED AT KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA.
Page No.# 3/8
2: DR MAISH BOARD
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRESENTLY POSTED AT PUNE BENCHES PUNE
VERSUS
WILLIAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT
1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT EXPORT
PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL PARK
PLOT NO. 1
AMINGAON NORTH GUWAHATI KAMRUP
ASSAM- 781031. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
ADITYA KHAITAN.
2:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
GUWAHATI- 2 GUWAHATI
AAYAKAR BHAWAN
CHRISTIAN BASTI
G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005.
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE- III GUWAHATI
AAYAKAR BHAWAN
CHRISTIAN BASTI
G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005.
------------
Advocate for : BARANYAMOY SARMA
Advocate for : SC
ITD appearing for WILLIAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD
Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/400/2025
SANJAY GARG AND ANR
JUDICIAL MEMBER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRESENTLY POSTED AT KOLKATA BENCHES
KOLKATA.
2: DR MANISH BOARD
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRESENTLY POSTED AT PUNE BENCHES PUNE
VERSUS
Page No.# 4/8
WILLIAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD AND 2 ORS
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT
1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE SITUATED AT EXPORT
PROMOTION INDUSTRIAL PARK
PLOT NO. 1
AMINGAON NORTH GUWAHATI KAMRUP
ASSAM- 781031. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
ADITYA KHAITAN.
2:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
GUWAHATI- 2 GUWAHATI
AAYAKAR BHAWAN
CHRISTIAN BASTI
G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005.
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CIRCLE- III GUWAHATI
AAYAKAR BHAWAN CHRISTIAN BASTI
G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005.
------------
Advocate for : BARANYAMOY SARMA
Advocate for : appearing for WILLIAMSON FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD AND 2
ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 01.09.2025
(M. Zothankhuma, J)
Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. S. Chetia,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. No one appears for the
respondent No. 1, as no notice had been issued to the said respondent.
2. The applicants are seeking expunction of the adverse remarks and
observations given by this Court in the common judgment and order dated
24.09.2024 passed in ITA Nos. 2/2024, 4/2024, 6/2024 and 7/2024. The
applicant No.1 is the Judicial Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Page No.# 5/8
Kolkata, whereas the applicant No.2 is the Account Member, Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal.
3. The applicants' counsel submits that the revenue had preferred an appeal
before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, against the order passed by the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), in respect of various assessment years,
in relation to the applications of explanation to Section 14A of the Income Tax
Appeal Act, 1961, which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2022, which has
retrospective effect.
4. The applicants' counsel submits that the learned Appellate Tribunal, vide
the order dated 06.07.2022, allowed the appeals of the revenue. Subsequent to
the order dated 06.07.2022, passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, the Delhi
High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Era
Infrastructure (India) Ltd, reported in (2024) 160 taxmann.com 92
(Delhi), held that the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2022, pertaining
to the explanation inserted to Section 14A would be applicable prospectively and
could not be presumed to have retrospective effect.
5. After the decision of the Delhi High Court, which has been made on
16.07.2022, the respondent/assessee filed Misc. Applications, for rectification of
the earlier order dated 06.07.2022, passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal, on
the ground that the same was not in consonance with the decision of the Delhi
High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) (supra) .
Further, in another appeal that had been filed before the learned Tribunal,
subsequent to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) (supra), the same Tribunal had
Page No.# 6/8
passed a decision in line with the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of
some other assessee/appeal. However, the learned Tribunal rejected the
rectification applications submitted against the order dated 06.07.2022 passed
by the learned Tribunal earlier.
6. The respondent/assessee, who was aggrieved by the order dated
06.07.2022 passed by the learned Tribunal, approached this Court by way of ITA
Nos. 2/2024, 4/2024, 6/2024 and 7/2024. This Court, vide the judgment and
order dated 24.09.2024, disposed of the above Income Tax Appeals, on the
ground that the learned Tribunal could not have taken different views in respect
of different appeals, by holding that the explanation inserted to Section 14A by
the Finance Act, 2022, would be applicable prospectively. While deciding the
said issue, this Court made certain observations and remarks in the last
paragraph, which has been assailed by the applicants, on the ground that the
same has caused immense harm to the members of the Appellate Tribunal, as it
cursed exertion on them, which affected the reputation as an unbiased
authority.
7. The learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that though the
learned Members of the Tribunal had rejected the rectification applications
submitted by the respondent/assessee, pursuant to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in another case, he was not going into the merits of the decision
passed in the impugned judgment and order pertaining to ITA Nos. 2/2024,
4/2024, 6/2024 and 7/2024. The applicants' grievance was only with regard to
the adverse remarks/observations that had been made in the last paragraph of
the impugned judgment and order and not with regard to the merits of the
case.
Page No.# 7/8
8. The learned senior counsel for the applicants submits that as the passing of
disparaging remarks and unwarranted comments on the conduct of the
members of the Tribunal had caused great damage to their reputation in
disposal of appeals for the administration of justice, the said
observations/adverse remarks should be expunged.
9. In the case of Amar Pal Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another, reported in (2012) 6 SCC 491 , the Supreme Court has held that a
Judge of a superior Court however strongly he may feel about the unmerited
and fallacious order passed by an officer, is required to maintain sobriety,
calmness, dispassionate reasoning and poised restraint. In the case of Om
Prakash Chautala Vs. Kanwar Bhan and others, reported in (2014) 5
SCC 417, the Supreme Court has held that when a Court deals with a matter,
which is likely to affect a person's reputation and caustic observations are made,
which are not necessary, it can hurt a man. The reputation of a person should
not be allowed to be sullied with passage of time. In the case of Prakash
Singh Teji vs. Northern India Goods Transport Company Private
Limited and another, reported in (2009) 12 scc 577, the Supreme Court has
held that it is settled law that harsh or disparaging remarks are not to be made
against persons and authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before
Courts of law, unless it is really necessary for the decision of the case as an
integral part thereof.
10. In the present case, the remarks/observations made in the last paragraph
of the impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.2024 could be harmful to the
applicants, keeping in view the fact that they had made a decision, as they had
deemed it proper.
Page No.# 8/8
11. On considering the above, we are of the view that the last paragraph of
the common judgment and order dated 24.09.2024, which is as follows:-
"Having taken note of the above fact, while restraining ourselves from making
harsh comments, we can only say that such a conduct of the members of an
authority, which is discharging judicial functions, cannot be appreciated. Any
authority discharging judicial functions is expected to maintain consistency in its
views in respect of judicial matters because any unjust deviation may affect the
credibility of such authority.", should be set aside
12. Accordingly, we expunge the last paragraph of the impugned judgment and
order dated 24.09.2024, passed in ITA Nos. 2/2024, 4/2024, 6/2024 and
7/2024. It is made clear once again that the expunction of the
remarks/observations made by this Court in the last paragraph of the above
common judgment and order, should not be construed as a comment with
regard to the merits of the case.
13. The IAs are accordingly disposed off.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
