9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve also been filed by the petitioner. - the competent authority was not bound to effect compounding in violation of the mandatory prohibitions prescribed therefor. - 4673/2010 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2011 - A.K. Sikri and M.L. Mehta, JJ. Viraj R. Datar, Adv. for the Petitioner Anupam Tripathi, Standing Senior Counsel with Anusha Singh, Advs. for the Respondent JUDGMENT M.L.Mehta, J 1. The Petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s Anil Batra and Associates Private Limited. During the AY 1982-83, tax deducted at source by the company was deposited beyond the period prescribed by law. Similarly, during AY 1983-84 and 1984-85 also, the company deposited the tax beyond the period prescribed by law. That being so, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. The petitioner, through its Chartered Accountants, sent a detailed proposal dated 17.11.2003 to the Department after calculating the approximate Compounding Fee applicable for each of the three years. Again, the petitioner received no reply from the Department. 5. The petitioner thereafter filed two petitions before this court, (which were clubbed together), praying inter-alia for staying of appeal proceedings pending before the Addl. Session's Judge, subject to the outcome of the disposal of the petitioner's compounding petition before the Income Tax Department. This court disposed of the same vide order dated 28.07.2005 in the following terms: "In view of the same, petitioner is directed to appear before Commissioner of Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and materials of the case and the submission made by the counsel for the assessee I find that there is no material change in the facts of the case, since the disposal of earlier applications by the CBDT as well as the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-I. Moreover, it is to be noted that the assessee has already been convicted for A.Y.'s 1983-84 and 1984-85 by a competent Court and the department is already in revision before a higher court for enhancement of punishment. The offence committed in the period relevant to AY 1982-83 is of similar nature as for other two years and the case is already under trial. In such circumstances in the interest of justice as well as judicial propriety it will not be prudent on my part to compound the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e construed to mean that the terms were to be effected and compounding fee charged, even if the offence was not compoundable. The order also states that the Commissioner is to pass appropriate orders regarding compounding of the offence. This cannot be interpreted to mean that the Commissioner was directed to compound the offence without considering if the same was compoundable or not. 9. After the existing guidelines dated 30.09.1994 for compounding of offences came to be revised vide notification dated 29.07.2003, a letter dated 25.09.2003 was issued by the ITO to the petitioner intimating the revised guidelines. Copy of the guidelines dated 29.07.2003was also sent to the petitioner for perusal. The submission of the learned counsel t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT/DGIT shall not reject an application for compounding of a technical offence, if all conditions prescribed in the Guidelines are satisfied. (II) Para 5 (iii) of the existing Guidelines provides that for compounding of substantive/non-technical, in which the amount involved in the offence exceeds 1 lakh, the Board shall grant approval if Ministry of Law advises that the chances of successful prosecution are not good. This requirement of referring the matter to the Ministry of Law has now been done away with." 10. From the above, it may be seen that under the existing guidelines of 30.09.1994 (enlisted in para 2.2. of the said Guidelines), technical offences could be compounded by CCIT or DGIT if the three conditions were collectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " 12. The interpretation of the aforesaid Clause as presented by learned counsel is erroneous and misplaced. The plain and literal interpretation of the aforesaid Clause would only mean that the amendments made in the existing guidelines on 29.07.2003 would be applicable to the future as well as to the cases pending at any stage and that the offences already compounded shall not be reconsidered. In other words it would mean that it was the applicability of the amendments to the future as also to the cases pending and not that the compounding would be allowed even after the filing of the complaint or where the person has already been convicted by a competent court. The conditions stipulated for compounding of a technical offence being ve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
