TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r AY 2013-14. Thus, it cannot be said that in AY 2013-14 it can be said to be the "first offence" committed by the assessee. Under the circumstances, the respondent no.1 has rightly rejected the compounding application submitted by the petitioner. Rejection of the compounding application submitted by the petitioner is absolutely in consonance with the Guidelines, 2014. The impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 rejecting the compounding application submitted by the petitioner cannot be said to be either illegal or contrary to the Guidelines, we see no reason to interfere with the same. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition fails and same deserve to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. - Spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounding of Offence, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Guidelines ). That the said application along with application for two other years i.e. AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 came to be accepted by the respondent no.1 Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara and the application of the petitioner for compounding offence came to be allowed / granted. That the petitioner filed return of income for AY 2013-14 on 29.11.2014, which was also after the due date of filing of the return. Therefore, the petitioner assessee again violated the provision of Section 276CC of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner received a notice dated 12.03.2015 for prosecution under Section 276 CC of the Act for AY 2013-14. On receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offence after issuance of show cause notice. 3.1. It is further submitted by Shri S.N. Sopakar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that as provided in the Guidelines, the Guidelines of non compounding offence is only a general guideline and not a strict law as suggested by the heading offence generally not to be compounded . 3.2. It is submitted that the compounding application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent no.1 on erroneous understanding of the law. It is submitted that whilst Guidelines no doubt are to be kept in mind specially while exercising jurisdiction, however they cannot bind the authority from considering the objective facts before it. It is submitted that in the present ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elines, the compounding offence is not a matter or right. There are different categories of offence mentioned in the Guidelines. The offence under Section 276 CC of the Act falls in category B . As per Clause 8(ii) with respect to offence falling under category B , the offence other than first offence as defined generally not to be compound. What can be said to be first offence is also mentioned in the clause 8(ii) and as per the same, first offence means offence under any of the Direct Tax Laws committed prior to (a) the date of issue of any show cause notice for prosecution or (b) any intimation relating to prosecution by the Department to the person concerned or (c) launching of any prosecution, whichever is earlier. It is the case on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice for prosecution for AY 2013-14 was issued on 12.03.2015 and prior thereto the return of income was filed for AY 2013-14 on 29.11.2014 and therefore, the same can to be said to be first offence, cannot be accepted. What is required to be considered is whether for any prior year any show cause notice for prosecution is issued and served upon the petitioner or not. If the contention on behalf of the petitioner is accepted, in that case, it will be contrary to the clause 8(ii) of the Guidelines. In the present case, for AY 2011-12, the show cause notice was already issued under Section 276 CC of the Act on 27.10.2014 for non filing of return before due date (for AY 2011-12) and despite the same for the subsequent years i.e. fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffence under Section 276 CC of the Act for AY 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 though were filed and numbered separately, were clubbed together in one case and the learned Magistrate passed the orders holding the accused guilty under Section 276CC on three counts. The question arose whether the offence for which accused was charged were distinct or separate and not in any way interrelated and when each offence had no connection with other, joinder of charges would become bad in law or not and to that it has been observed and held by the Madras High Court that framing of charge was defective and violative of Sections 218 and 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as judgment was rendered only in one case and there was no finding of guilt reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
