TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1990, has disposed of the prosecution. We do not consider it desirable to revive the said prosecution with respect to an offence more than 20 years old more particularly when the Commissioner of Income-tax, Udaipur, by order dated November 15, 1995, has deleted the penalty imposed on the respondent-assessee-firm under section 271(1)(c) - - - - - Dated:- 14-11-2002 - Judge(s) : N. N. MATHUR., H. R. PANWAR. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by N. N. MATHUR J. -The Union of India being aggrieved by part of the order of the learned single judge dated May 9, 1990 (Shree Singhvi Brothers v. Union of India [1991] 187 ITR 219), has preferred this special appeal. The material facts giving rise to the instant appeal are th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peals). An application was filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 273A for waiver or substantial reduction in the penalty imposed. It is averred that during the course of hearing of the application under section 273A on the assurance given by the appellate authority that on payment of tax due the penalty of Rs. 29,600 shall be waived, the respondent-assessee deposited tax due of Rs. 7,230 in the account of the firm and Rs. 10,330 in the account of Kushal Singh Singhvi. However, the application for the waiver was rejected by the Income-tax Commissioner. The respondent-assessee aggrieved by the order of the Income-tax Commissioner filed an application under section 154 of the Act. However, the said application was also reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of hearing to the respondent-assessee before launching of the prosecution. In view of the finding the learned single judge quashed the complaint filed against the respondent-assessee pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur. It is no more res integra that the assessee is not entitled to show cause notice before launching of the prosecution. The apex court in Union of India v. Banwari Lal Agarwal [1999) 238 ITR 461 found: ". . . sub-section (2) of section 279 is a provision which enables the Chief Commissioner or the Director General to compound any offence either before or after the institution of proceeding. There is no warrant in interpreting this sub-section to mean that before any prosecution i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
