9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which are normally not be compounded. In order to become eligible for compounding clause 7(v) says that there has be to an undertaking by the assesses for withdrawal appeal filed by him, if it is related to the offence sought to be compounded. Likewise, clause 8(iii) provides that offence committed by a person for which he was convicted by a Court of law under direct taxes laws compounding cannot be done. As on today, the petitioners are convicted persons and in appeal, only the sentence has been suspended not the conviction, therefore, respondent No. 1 has rightly declined to compound the offence. By conjoint reading of section 279(2) and clauses 7(v) and 8. (iii), it is explicit that the Income Tax Authorities have the power to com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engaged in the business of purchase, sale and development of plots. According to the petitioners without their knowledge, they were unlawfully removed from the directorship of the company w.e.f.12.04.2006 for which they have challenged before Company Law Board and vide order dated 12.09.2011, their removal has been declared null and void and restored status quo ante as on dated 12.04.2006. [2] Vide assessment order dated 21.12.2008, the Assessment Officer assessed the income of the company Rs.4,63,140/- for the assessment year 2006-2007 and accordingly raised demand of Rs.2,07,338/- with a fine of Rs.3,50,000/-. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed a complaint on 28.03.2012 before JMFC, Indore for prosecution under Section 276 C (1) (i) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy of the aforesaid revision, by way of the impugned order dated 10.12.2021, respondent No.1 has rejected the application for compounding as it is not a fit case for compounding the aforesaid circular due to the conviction. Thereafter learned Special Judge has also dismissed the application under Section 320 (5) of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 27.08.2022 on the ground that the Court cannot direct respondent No.1 for compounding the offence. Now petitioners have approached this Court challenging validity of the order dated 10.12.2021 whereby respondent No.1 did not agree to the compounding of the offence. [5] Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are entitled to the compounding of the offence under guidelines issued for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no.1 to consider the application afresh in the light of the order passed by Apex Court in the case of Lachhman Dass (supra) and Madras High Court. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case . [7] As clear from the subject of the guidelines issued on 14.06.2019 the offence under the IT Act is liable to be compounded under the provisions of Section 279(2) of the I.T. Act. Section 279 (2) of the IT Act provides that any offence under this Chapter either before or after the institution of the proceedings can be compounded by the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Director General or Principal Director General. In order to give the effect of Section 279(2) of the IT Catego ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
