9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 770X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computed the taxable total income at Rs. 1,32,100, in the assessment passed, under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on December 23, 1990. In the said assessment order the expenses claimed by the petitioner had been disallowed and added back in the computation of taxable total income, for want of proper vouchers. It has been further stated that the petitioner had filed an appeal against the assessment order passed by the fifth respondent, before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) I, Chennai, on February 22, 1991, with a prayer to condone the delay in filing the said appeal. By an order dated June 26, 1991, in I. T. A. No. 257/1990-91, the first appellate authority had condoned the delay in filing the appeal and had granted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn by the petitioner the said authority had granted the substantial relief, in his order passed in I. T. A. No. 226 of 1991-92. The said order had been given effect to, by the fifth respondent, on August 24, 1992. It has been further stated that, due to the default committed by the petitioner company, in the filing of the return of income, for the assessment year 1987-88, as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act, it had been issued with a show-cause notice, under section 276CC of the Act. In the said show-cause notice the petitioner had been asked to show cause as to why it should not be prosecuted, along with its directors, for willfully failing to file its return of income within the time prescribed by the statute. The prosecut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , on October 4, 2002, with regard to the compounding of the offence. Another letter, dated October 10, 2003, had also been submitted for the said purpose. It had been further stated that a petition, in Crl. O. P. No. 39229 of 2003, had been filed before this court to direct the respondents, to consider the request of the petitioner for compounding the offence, as per its representation made on October 4, 2002. This court had passed an order, dated November 14, 2003, stating that the second respondent therein may consider the representation made by the petitioner, on October 4, 2002, and pass suitable orders, in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a writ petition, before this court, in W. P. No. 33770 of 2003, for issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of India. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted, inter alia, that there is no bar for considering the request of the petitioner for compounding the offence, even if the petitioner had been convicted. The learned counsel had further submitted that a criminal appeal has also been filed against the order of conviction and it is still pending. While so, this court may be pleased to direct the first respondent to entertain the request of the petitioner for compounding the offence, in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this court, in Chairman, CBDT v. Smt. Umayal Ramanathan [2009] 313 ITR 59 (Mad). No counter-affidavit had been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned counsel appeari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
