9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tent authority to reject an application for compounding on certain grounds. Again, it does not mean that every application, which involves an offence committed by a person, for which the complaint was filed to the competent court 12 months prior to the receipt of the application for compounding, will without anything further, be rejected. As is manifest from the aforesaid extracts, the Court had found that Section 279 (2) constructs no time lines with in which an application for compounding could be made. The Circular thus clearly travels beyond the statutory provision and erects a condition of disability which is not even contemplated by the Act. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot possibly be upheld. We, accordingly, all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is mentioned in sub-clause (vii) is: Offences committed by a person for which complaint was filed with the competent court 12 months prior to receipt of the application for compounding . 8. The above clause is not one prescribing a period of limitation for filing an application for compounding. It gives a discretion to the competent authority to reject an application for compounding on certain grounds. Again, it does not mean that every application, which involves an offence committed by a person, for which the complaint was filed to the competent court 12 months prior to the receipt of the application for compounding, will without anything further, be rejected. In other words, resort cannot be had to para 8 of the circular to prescr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, are compounded. The guidelines have to be understood only in that context. 10. The reason given in the impugned order dated November 3, 2016 for rejection of the Petitioner s application does not satisfy the criteria spelt out in the guidelines issued by the Department by its Circular dated 23rd December 2014. It has proceeded on a ground that is not available to the Department viz., that the application is inordinately delayed. Since there is no other reason given for the rejection of the application, the Court is unable to sustain the order dated November 3, 2016 of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax by which the petitioner s application for compounding was rejected. The said order is hereby set aside. The petitioner's applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
