TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the penal provisions u/s 276 CC (ii) and therefore, Sanction u/s 279 was given. Insofar as the belated filing of income tax return for other year, that is, assessment year 2012-13, no such prosecution was launched, it seems. This has been exactly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reason for non-filing of return or belated filing of return for the two or three assessment years consecutively is because of the calamities, which he pointed out in his representation, taken place in his family, where there has been a lot of litigations, which had to be faced by the family of the petitioner, hence he could not concentrate on filing of returns. Whether these reasons have been considered in a proper perspective b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order dated 03.05.2018 passed by the first respondent under Section 279(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and set aside the same and also direct the first respondent to reconsider the compounding petition filed by the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is an income tax assessee with PAN No.AEFPC8443J. The petitioner claimed that he had been regularly filing the income tax returns. However, for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, there had been so many issues in the family of the petitioner, as a number of litigations had to be faced by the petitioner and his family members. Therefore, the petitioner coul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... moved this Court by filing the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who by relying upon the reasons stated by the petitioner in the representations submitted to both the first and second respondents dated 18.09.2017 and 26.09.2017 has submitted that, there has been proceedings under SARFAESI Act against the family members of the petitioner and also proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been initiated against the petitioner and in view of these litigations and other allied actions, which were to be dealt with by the petitioner alone during the relevant point of time, he could not concentrate in the accounting matter especially in the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instructions, would submit that, the returns ought to have been filed on or before 31.07.2013, insofar as the assessment year 2013-14. However, the return was belatedly filed ie., after four years. For such four years long delay, no plausible reason has been given by the petitioner for invoking the provision of Section 279 (2) of IT Act. In this regard, after sanction order passed by the first respondent, the prosecution was launched, where the matter has been taken into cognizance by the concerned Court, where summons also was issued against the petitioner. Therefore, at this juncture, since the petitioner has come out with an application invoking Section 279(2) of the IT Act, for compounding the offence, that too without any acceptable or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the offence has been given to the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner or Principal Deputy General/Deputy General, as the case may be. Therefore, in this context, the first respondent can very well entertain the plea of the petitioner for compounding the offence by exercising his power under Section 279(2) of the IT Act. 8. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reasoning cited by the petitioner in his request for compounding the offence has not been considered in proper perspective and only a crisp order has been passed, where the plea of the petitioner since has been rejected, the same can be interfered with, he contended. 9. Insofar as the said plea raised by the petitioner is concerned, I ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order passed by the first respondent dated 06.02.2017 in this regard, it discloses that the return of income tax for the assessment year 2013-14 should have been filed on or before 31.07.2013 under Section 139(1) of the IT Act, since the same has not been filed, which was belatedly filed, it attracts the penal provisions under Section 276 CC (ii) of the IT Act and therefore, Sanction under Section 279 of the IT Act was given. Insofar as the belated filing of income tax return for other year, that is, assessment year 2012-13, no such prosecution was launched, it seems. 12. This has been exactly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reason for non-filing of return or belated filing of return for the two or three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
