9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... educted as tax, from the sums payable under various contracts. These contracts were entered into by it, towards services rendered in connection with the Commonwealth Games, 2010. The amount in question i.e. the delayed payment was to the tune of Rs. 70,06,803/-. The petitioner was proceeded with and apparently a complaint for the offence prescribed under Section 276B was filed. It was in these circumstances that the petitioner sought for compounding of the offence under Section 279(2). Its application was rejected; by the impugned order. The Chief Commissioner inter alia reasoned as follows: "The case is not found to be fit for compounding as the applicant does not fulfil criteria no. 13 of application proforma. In the applicant's case th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enses and the litigation expenses including counsel's fee, if any, determined and communicated by the CCIT/DGIT concerned. iv. The person undertakes to withdraw appeal filed by him, if any, in case the same has a bearing on the offence sought to be compounded. In case such appeal has mixed grounds, some of which may not be related to the offence under consideration, the undertaking may be taken for appropriate modification in grounds of such appeal. 8. Offences generally not to be compounded: i. A Category 'A' offences sought to be compounded by an applicant in whose case compounding was allowed in the past, in an offence under the same section for which the present compounding has been requested, on 3 occasions or more ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing enquiry, filing of FIR/ Complaint) by Enforcement Directorate, CBI, Lokpal, Lakayukta or any other Central or State agency." 4. The petitioner contends that the view taken by the Chief Commissioner cannot be sustained for the reasons that the ongoing investigations have culminated in a closure report. In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon the letter from Superintendent of Police, CBI's letter of 11.08.2015, written to it. That letter reads as follows: "11.8.2015 To, The Director, Sports Infratech Pvt. Ltd. 204, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-Ill, New Delhi. Sub: Status on case (RC 3(A)/2011/AC-III/CBI/New Delhi) of M/s. Sports Infratech Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Jubilee Sports Technology (India) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Assistant Commissioner, Assessment II, Bangalore and Others vs. Velliappa Textiles Ltd. and Another [2003] 263 ITR 550 (SC) to highlight that compounding application cannot be concluded to as a matter of right but rather is subject to exercise of discretion. There is no quarrel with the proposition that power to accept a plea for compounding or refusal is essentially discretionary. The exercise, however, in each case is dependent upon the Authority who has to apply his or her mind judiciously to the circumstances of each case. The rejection of the petitioner's application in this case is entirely routed on the Chief Commissioner's understanding of the conditions of ineligibility of para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
