9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest payment amounting to Rs. 61,90,068/- was made, but the tax deducted at source was withheld on this interest amount. This amount is Rs. 12,75,154/-. The due date of depositing the tax withheld was 7th July, 2008. The tax was deposited with the treasury on 29th September, 2009. There was a delay of 474 days. The interest was also paid for this delay in the sum of Rs. 2,04,030/-. The petitioners have deposited in time with the treasury the tax deducted at source for all the assessment years except the year under consideration, namely, 2009-10. Since there was this default, a requisition was served, copy of which is at Exhibit 'D' to the petition. Then, there was a show cause notice, copy of which is at Exhibit 'X' dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and those applications have been granted. The petitioners' applications were rejected on the ground that nobody attended the proceedings on the date on which they were scheduled. 6. On 27th March, 2015, a criminal complaint was field in the court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier, Mumbai numbered as CC No. 102/SW/2015. The petitioners prayed that the ex-parte order having prejudiced them, relying upon a Central Board of Direct Tax Circular, once again requested that the compounding application be decided afresh. That was rejected without giving an opportunity and by treating it as a second application. Thus, the restoration request was treated as a fresh or second a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... affidavit in reply, we do not find that the respondents have applied their mind to the compounding applications by dealing with the merits thereof. The applications have been dismissed only on the ground that nobody attended the proceedings when the first application was being taken up and the subsequent fresh applications cannot be entertained as the first one was rejected. All this hardly indicates any application of mind. 10. It is in these circumstances and in facts peculiar to this case, without this order being treated as a precedent, we allow the writ petition. We direct that the application for compounding the offences made as early as on 20th February, 2014 (Exhibit 'K') be considered and a fresh order be passed thereon as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
