9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 68 of 2023 has been filed challenging the circular dated 14.06.2019 issued by the 1st respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had purchased a property in the year 2006 and sold the same in the year 2013. Thereafter, in the same year (2013), she had purchased another property. Therefore, she was under the impression that since she is not an income tax assessee and she had re-invested the capital gain of her sale consideration in another property, she is not liable to pay any income tax to the respondents and hence, she had not filed the income tax returns. However, though the petitioner had not filed her income tax returns on time for the assessment year 2013-2014, she had filed the same belate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been filed by the petitioner. 6. In support of his contentions, he had referred to the following judgments of other High Courts, wherein the provisions of the circular, with regard to the fixation of the time limit of a period 12 months from the date of prosecution, was struck down and the order of rejection of application for compounding of offences was set aside: (i) Footcandles Film Pvt. Ltd., and another vs. Income Tax Officer-TDS-1 and others, in W.P.No.429 of 2022; (ii) Vikram Singh vs. Union of India, reported in [2017] 80 taxmann.com 371 (Delhi); 7. Per Contra, Dr.B.Ramaswamy, the learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the respondent had vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and hence, taking all these facts into consideration, the Authorities concerned has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for compounding of offences. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of these writ petitions. 11. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the materials available on record, particularly the said circular and the case laws produced before this Court by the petitioner as well as the respondents. 12. It appears that in the present case, the petitioner had purchased an immovable property on 05.06.2006 and further, she had sold the said property on 05.02.2013. After the sale of the said property, she had reinve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the prosecution was launched on 14.09.2016. Hence, according to the respondent, the application for compounding of offences was supposed to be filed by the petitioner on or before 13.09.2017. However, the said application was filed only on 14.09.2021 i.e., beyond the period of prescribed time limit. 15. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fixation of time limit of 12 months for filing the application for compounding of offences is not in accordance with the Section 279(2) of the IT Act, which reads as follows: "279. Prosecution to be at instance of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or 4 Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.- (1) ........................... ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the object of the said provisions. The explanation, which empowers the CBDT to issue circular, is only for the purpose of implementation of the provisions of the Act with regard to the compounding of offences and not for the purpose of fixing time limit for filing the application for compounding of offences and the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act and hence, it is not permissible in terms of Section 279(2) of the IT Act. 19. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the CBDT is not empowered to fix the time limit for filing the application for compounding of offences, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 279(2) of the IT Act. Thus in terms of Section 279(2) of the IT Act, the petitioner can file the application for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other Courts in this aspect. Empowering the CBDT to issue the circular, guidelines, notification will not ipso facto validate the contents of the circular issued by it. The contents of the W.P.No.2968 & 2970 of 2023 circular will always be challengeable. The power of CBDT to issue the circular is entirely different aspect from challenging the contents of the circular. Therefore, the said Judgments will not be applicable for the issue decided by this Court. 22. From the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the respondent, rejecting the application for compounding of offences on a sole ground that it is barred by limitation, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 20.08.2022 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
