TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the offence sought for by the respondent - 439 of 2003 and 540 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2009 - JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN and JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN Mr. K. Ramasamy Senior Special Public Prosecutor for the Appellants . Mr. Sasidharan for the Respondents. JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A. KULASEKARAN, J. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2002 made in W.P. No. 33925 of 2002 of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, which was filed challenging the order of the third appellant refusing to exercise its power conferred under Section 279 (2) of The Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as Act to compound the offence. 2. The facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings dated 02.08.2002 of the third appellant herein, in which para Nos. 2 and 3 are relevant, which are extracted hereunder:- "2. It is not in dispute that the respondents-department themselves in a case similarly placed, moved this Court seeking to invoke the powers conferred under Section 279 (2) of the Income Tax Act for compounding offence while the matter was pending before this Court for revision and obtained leave of this Court to commute offence by exercising power conferred under Section 279 (2) of the Income Tax Act vide order dated 11.02.2000 in Crl.M.P. No. 984 of 2000 in Crl.R.C. No. 588 of 1996, even though the respondent-accused therein was also convicted and whose conviction was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent submitted that Section 279 (2) of the Act is provided to facilitate compounding of offence, either before or after institution of the proceedings, considering the same, the learned single Judge has rightly applied it and set aside the impugned proceedings of the third appellant; that the appellants herein, in another case where the trial court has convicted a similarly placed assessee, whose appeal was also dismissed, and pending revision, the said assessee has filed a petition for compounding the offence invoking Section 279 (2) of the Act and in that case the appellants accepted the plea of the said assessee and went to the extent of filing Crl.M.P. No. 984 of 2000 in Crl.R.C. No. 588 of 1996 seeking leave of the Court to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al...." 7. It is evident from Section 279 (2) of the Act that any offence under this Chapter may either before or after the institution of proceedings, be compounded by the Chief Commissioner or a Director General. 8. The term 'proceedings' is not defined in the Income Tax Act, 1961. The term 'proceedings' is a term of wide amplitude and comprehensive and generally speaking means a prescribed course of action for enforcing a legal right. It is not a technical expression with a definite meaning attached to it, but one the ambit of whose meaning would be governed by statute. In this context, it is useful to refer to the below mentioned decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court. i) ( Babu Lal vs. M/s. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs wherein the entire proceedings are again left open for consideration by the appellate authorities which has the power to review the entire evidence subject, of course, to the prescribed statutory limitations. But in the case of revision whatever powers the revisional authority may have, it has no power to reassess and reappreciate the evidence unless the statute expressly confers on it that power. That limitation is implicit in the concept of revision. In this view of the matter we are supported by a decision of this Court in State of Kerala vs. K.M. Charia Abdullah and Co." 10. In the case on hand, against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, on the complaint preferred by the appellants, the respondent has fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
