TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 891X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for compounding offence in respect of Financial Year 2013-14 and 2014-15 on 15/01/2018, which was received on 17/01/2018. Hence, the Pr. CCIT was justified in levying compounding fee for the aforesaid financial years treating the same as second occasion. Order passed by Pr. CCIT is in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The guidelines issued by the CBDT for the purposes of compounding fee have not been struck down in any of the judgment. It is purely a question of fact i.e. whether, the application should be treated as second application for the Financial Year 2013-14 and 2014-15 or as first application. Pr. CCIT was justified in treating the application as second applications / occasions and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Pr. CCIT. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. - Writ Petition No.3813/2019 - - - Dated:- 29-4-2019 - S.C. Sharma And Virender Singh JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Goyal, learned counsel For the Respondent : Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel ORDER The petitioner b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounding charges at ₹ 1,53,872/- by applying rate of 3% per month of the tax in default and thereafter, vide letter dated 02/11/2018 granted approval for compounding of the offence under Section 276-B and assessing compounding fees totaling to ₹ 25,46,246/- by applying the rate of 5% per month of the tax in default for the Financial Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 04-The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, M.P. and CG vide order dated 10/01/2019 compounded the offence punishable under Section 276-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Financial Year 2015-16. Thereafter, a clarification letter No.PR.CCIT /M.P. CG/Tech/C-140/TDS/2017-18/48502 dated 10/01/2019 was received by the petitioner directing the payment of compounding charges for the offence under Section 276-B for Financial Years 2013-14 and 2014-15 at the rate of 5% treating the same as second occasion. The petitioner being aggrieved by the compounding charges determined to be payable for the Financial Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, which as per the petitioner are not in accordance with the guidelines issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) (F.No.285/35/2013 IT) dated 23/12/2014, has approac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be compounded by the Competent Authority on his satisfaction regarding fulfillment of the eligibility conditions prescribed in the relevant guidelines keeping in view factors. 08-The respondent has further stated that as per the guidelines, the offences under Chapter XXII of the Act are classified in two parts Category-'A' and Category-'B' for the purposes of compounding offences and for offence committed under Section 276-B is a Category-'A' offence, which relates to failure of pay tax deducted at source under Chapter XVII-B. 09-The respondent has further stated CCIT/DGIT is having jurisdiction in respect of compounding of offence falling under Category-'A'. The respondent has further stated that as per the relevant guidelines, the cases in respect of compounding are to be considered only when the assessee has paid the amount of tax, interest, penalties and any other sum payable relating to the default. The respondent has further stated that compounding application has to be submitted in the prescribed format. 10-The respondent has also stated that as per paragraph 12.1 of the relevant guidelin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. 2013-14 22/06/2017 2. 2014-15 22/06/2017 3. 2015-16 14/08/2017 4. 2016-17 12/03/2018 A complaint was also filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore in respect of Financial Year 2013-14 on 05/06/2018 vide Criminal Case No. SC EOW/24397/2018. 12-It has been further stated that assessee after deducting TDS on payments has not deposited the same in the Government account as per the provisions of Section 200(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and it was noticed that he was habitual in not depositing the TDS. However, the respondent has stated that the respondent has taken just and lenient view while considering the case of the petitioner for compounding the offence and compounding of offence is allowed for the Financial Year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. 13-Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e or after the institution of proceedings, be compounded by the CCIT/DGIT. As per section 2(15A) and 2(21) of the Act, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax includes Principal CCIT and Director General of Income tax includes Principal DGIT. 4.Compounding is not a matter of right: Compounding of offences is not a matter of right. However, offences may be compounded by the competent authority on his satisfaction of the eligibility conditions prescribed in these guidelines keeping in view factors such as conduct of the person; nature and magnitude of the offence and facts and circumstances of the each case. 6.Classification of Offences: The offences under Chapter-XXII of the Act are classified into two parts (Category-'A' and Category-'B') for the limited purpose of compounding of the offences. 6.1Category 'A' Offences punishable under the following sections are included in Category 'A': Sl. No. Section Description/Heading of section i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of property to thwart tax recovery iv. 276A Failure to comply with the provisions of sections 178 (1) and 178 (3) v. 276AA (prior to 01/10/1986) Failure to comply with the provisions of section 269 AB or section 269 I. vi. 276AB Failure to comply with the provisions of sections 269UC, 269UE and 269UL vii. 276C(1) Wilful attempt to evade tax etc viii. 276(2) Wilful attempt to evade payment of taxes etc ix. 276CC Failure to furnish returns of Income x. 276CCC Failure to furnish returns of income in search cases in block assessment scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 962. Further, you have also failed to pay the outstanding demand prior to the filing of aforesaid application, hence, did not fulfill the other eligibility condition also. Therefore, due to these reasons the application claimed to have been filed by you on 19.07.2018 is not found to be a valid one. Later on you have submitted the application for the F.Ys.-2013-14 2014-15 dtd. 15.01.2018 which was received in this office on 17.01.2018. Thus, this application is filed in this office after the first application filed for the F.Y.-2015-16, which was filed on 16.10.2017. 3.Thereafter, an application dtd. 14.09.2017 for compounding of offences u/s 276B of the I.Tax Act for the F.Y.-2015-16 was filed on 16.10.2017. Therefore, compounding fees of ₹ 1,53,872/- @ 3% per month or part of the month of the amount of tax in default was calculated being the first occasion. Subsequently, the approval u/s 279(2) of the I.T.Act was also communicated to you vide letter dtd. 02.11.2018. The amount of compounding fees for the F.Y.-2015-16 was also paid by you vide challan no.-23478 dated 11.12.2018. 4.Therefore, the compounding fees payable for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 16/10/2017 and thereafter, he submitted an application for compounding offence in respect of Financial Year 2013-14 and 2014-15 on 15/01/2018, which was received on 17/01/2018. Hence, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in levying compounding fee for the aforesaid financial years treating the same as second occasion. 22-The order passed by the learned Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax is in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel also does not help the petitioner. The guidelines issued by the CBDT for the purposes of compounding fee have not been struck down in any of the judgment. It is purely a question of fact i.e. whether, the application should be treated as second application for the Financial Year 2013-14 and 2014-15 or as first application. 23-In the considered opinion of this Court, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax was justified in treating the application as second applications / occasions and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Principal Chief Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
