9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs the CBDT to issue circular, is only for the purpose of implementation of the provisions of the Act with regard to compounding of offences and not for the purpose of fixing a time limit for filing the application for compounding of offences and therefore, 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. As already stated even as per the guidelines issued by the authorities in the circular dated 06.09.2022, the petitioner cannot be considered as a habitual offender, as he has committed default only in two cases and in one case, the offence has already been compounded. This Court is of the view that once the nature of offence is compoundable by virtue of the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he compounding application on the ground of delay is unsustainable and therefore, is liable to be set aside. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Jayshree vs. CBDT reported in 2023 (11) TMI 1110 :: (2024) 464 ITR 81 (Mad) . The learned counsel, therefore, prays for quashing of the impugned order. 3. Per contra, Dr.B.Ramaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, would fairly submit that this Court by virtue of the aforesaid judgment had struck down clause 7(ii) of the circular holding that it is beyond the scope of the Act. He would however submit that previously it was 12 months, but now the time limit was fixed as 24 months. Be that as it may, by virtue of the ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not filed income tax return for two assessment years, viz., 2013-2014 2014- 2015. As far as for the financial year 2013 2014 is concerned, the offence has already been compounded. Hence, the same will not come into picture of bahitual offender category. 7. Dr.B.Ramasamy would submit though this matter is covered by the judgment of this Court cited supra, if these type of matters are allowed to continue, it will set as a bad precedent, as the petitioner is a habitual offender. Hence, opposed the Writ Petition. 8. As already stated above, even as per the guidelines issued by the authorities in the circular dated 06.09.2022, the petitioner cannot be considered as a habitual offender, as he has committed default only in two cases and in one ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
