TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es prescribe that certain cases should not be compounded normally - it is for the assessee to show sufficient cause or reason to support his request for the compounding of the offence - court rejected the plea of the assessee for reviewing the order passed earlier and rejecting for the compounding of the offence u/s 276CC – petition decided against assessee. - - - - - Dated:- 22-8-2012 - JAICHANDREN M. J. JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren J.-Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. It has been stated that the petitioner company had filed a belated return of income, on March 26, 1990, for the assessment year 1987-88. The petitioner company had shown the taxable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... determining the taxable total income as Rs. nil, after adjustment of the carried forward losses of the earlier years. It has been further stated that the parallel penalty proceedings, initiated under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the belated filing of the return of income, for the assessment year 1987-88, was objected to by the petitioner. The fifth respondent, on considering the objections filed by the petitioner, dated November 4, 1991, had proceeded to levy a penalty of Rs. 20,683, for the delay in the filing of the return, by the petitioner, by an order, dated January 20, 1991. It has been further stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner, belatedly, challenging the levy of penalty, under section 271(1)(a) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 276CC of the Act. The petitioner had also filed a letter of willingness to pay the compounding fee of Rs. 58,730. In the meantime, the trial court had adjudicated the complaint filed by the fifth respondent, vide its judgment, dated December 31, 1998. An appeal had been filed challenging the judgment of the trial court, dated December 31, 1998, before Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, by way of a criminal appeal, in C. A. No. 15 of 1999, and the said appeal is still pending on the file of the Sessions Court, Chennai. However, during the pendency of the said criminal appeal the petitioner had approached the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai, the second respondent herein, on April 3, 2000, in terms of section 279(2) of the Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the offence stating that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter in filing the returns of income for the assessment years, from 1974-75 to 1990-91. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a review petition before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai, to review and to reconsider the request of the petitioner for compounding the offence. The said petition had been disposed of, on September 16, 2011, stating that, as per paragraph 4.4 of the guidelines, dated May 16, 2008, compounding cannot be done in cases where a conviction order had been passed. However, it had been learnt, by way of the information obtained, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, that a number of applications had been entertained for the compounding of the offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould also have satisfied the other conditions contained in the said guidelines, for the compounding of the offence. Even though the guidelines prescribe that certain cases should not be compounded, normally, it is for the petitioner to show sufficient cause or reason to support his request for the compounding of the offence, based on the request made by the petitioner. In such circumstances, this court finds it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the second respondent, dated September 16, 2011, rejecting the plea of the petitioner for reviewing the order passed earlier, rejecting the request of the petitioner for the compounding of the offence, under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating to the assessment year 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
