Contempt proceedings may be closed if the underlying order is under challenge before a superior court.

The petitioner, a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, filed a Contempt Petition (CP) alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal's directions in O.A. No. 1175/2024

The respondents submitted that the underlying order of the Tribunal had been challenged before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 5745/2025

On May 6, 2025, the Delhi High Court requested the Tribunal to adjourn the contempt proceedings pending the writ petition

On February 19, 2026, the High Court noted the continued pendency of the matter

the petitioner failed to appear before the Tribunal on two consecutive hearing dates

1. Whether contempt proceedings should be continued when the parent order is under challenge before a High Court and the High Court has requested an adjournment of the contempt matter

The Tribunal applied the principle that contempt proceedings are generally not fit for initiation or continuation when an appeal against the judgment is pending before a superior court.

It relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Rajbir Singh v. Rajeev Verma (2013: DHC: 4580), which cited the Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Avadh Singh v. Lalji Yadav & Ors. (Crl. Appeal No. 2253/2000).

The Supreme Court held that in view of the pendency of an appeal and a stay application, contempt proceedings should be withdrawn, granting liberty to the respondents to take further action if the stay application is eventually dismissed

The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding the original order in the O.A. is currently sub-judice before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

Applying the ratio from Ram Avadh Singh (supra) and Rajbir Singh (supra), the Tribunal reasoned that it is appropriate to close the contempt petition rather than keep it pending, as the respondent has already moved the higher court

The Tribunal found that the facts and circumstances of the case—specifically the High Court's request to adjourn the contempt petition and the ongoing appellate proceedings—warranted a closure of the CP to maintain judicial propriety

To ensure the petitioner was not prejudiced, the Tribunal provided a mechanism for revival of the petition depending on the outcome of the writ petition

The Tribunal held that because the matter is pending before the High Court, the CP cannot be sustained at this stage.

the petitioner was granted specific liberty to approach the Tribunal for the revival of the CP in the event the High Court dismisses the Writ Petition or refuses the stay sought by the respondents