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