9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 824X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner-assessee permitting him to compound the offence under Section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act for AY 2013-14 has been rejected. 2.0. The facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as under: 2.1. That the petitioner-assessee filed the return of income for AY 2011-12 on 04.03.2013, though the return was due on 01.08.2011. That the said return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. As the return was not filed before the due date and therefore, the petitioner violated the provision of Section 276 CC of the Act, the respondent no.2 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax sent a proposal for prosecution to CITIII, Vadodara, who in turn issued a show cause notice dated 27.10.2014. That o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has preferred the present Special Civil Application. 3.0. Shri S.N. Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that in the present case compounding application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent no.1 solely on the ground that it is not the "first offence" of the petitioner. It is submitted that the show cause notice for prosecution under Section 276 CC of the Act for AY 2013-14 was issued only on 12.03.2015. It is submitted that prior thereto the petitioner already filed the return of income on 29.11.2014 and therefore, it cannot be said that it was the first offence. It is submitted that the respondent no.1 has erroneously computed date of issue of show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application submitted by the petitioner. Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of K. Inba Sagaran vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2001) ITR 528 (Madras) as well as decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sports Infratech (P) Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (HQRS) reported in (2017) 78 Taxmann. com 44 (Delhi), it is requested to admit / allow the present petition. 4.0. Heard Shri S.N. Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner at length. That by impugned order, the respondent no.1 has rejected the compounding application submitted by the petitioner for AY 2013-14 on the ground that as per the Guidelines only in a case of "first offence" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 CC of the Act was issued on 12.03.2015 and prior thereto the return of income for AY 2013-14 was already filed on 29.11.2014 and therefore, the same can be said to be "first offence" even as per the clause 8(ii) of the Guidelines. The submission on behalf of the assessee cannot be accepted. The aforesaid submission on behalf of the assessee is absolutely on misreading of clause 8(ii). On true interpretation of clause 8(ii), in case the offence is committed prior to date of issuance of any show cause notice for prosecution, in that case, it can be said to be the "first offence". Therefore, in case for any prior assessment year, the show cause notice has been issued for prosecution and despite the same, in the subsequent year, the offence i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner that while rejecting the compounding application submitted by the petitioner, respondent no.1 has not properly appreciated and / or considered the reason for not filing the return of income by petitioner before due date is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that it has nothing to do with the compounding application. It is required to be noted that while considering the application for compounding, merits is not required to be considered as is to be considered in trial. 6.0. Now, so far as reliance placed upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of K.Inba Sagaran (supra)relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitionerassessee is concerned, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 8.0. Even the learned advocate for the petitioner has requested not to observe anything on merits and therefore, we refrain from observing anything on merits, more particularly, the reasons given by the petitioner assessee for not filing return of income before due date, even for AY 2013-14. 9.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 rejecting the compounding application submitted by the petitioner cannot be said to be either illegal or contrary to the Guidelines, we see no reason to interfere with the same. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition fails and same deserve to be dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
