Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Jai Singh Goel - Appellant
Versus
Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax(central) & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 2356 of 2020
Decided On : 25-02-2022
Compounding - Income Tax Act - Section 276CC, Section 278E - The court discussed the rejection of the application for compounding of the offence under Section 276CC read with Section 278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court highlighted the objections raised by the respondent no.1 and the subsequent setting aside of the conviction by the learned Special Judge, leading to the rejection of the review application. The court emphasized the relevance of the CBDT circular dated 09.09.2019 in addressing the objection of limitation and the untenable ground for rejecting the compounding application based on the petitioner not being acquitted of the criminal charges. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondent no.1 to consider the compounding application on its merit and in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of the application for compounding of the offence under Section 276CC read with Section 278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as well as the dismissal of the review application following the setting aside of the conviction by the learned Special Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objections raised by the respondent no.1, regarding the limitation and the petitioner's conviction, were no longer valid in view of the CBDT circular and the setting aside of the conviction by the learned Special Judge. The court also deemed the reason for rejecting the review application as untenable in law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the compounding application based on limitation and the petitioner's conviction, as well as the dismissal of the review application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the objections raised by the respondent no.1 were no longer valid, and the reason for rejecting the review application was untenable. The court directed the respondent no.1 to consider the compounding application on its merit and in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The impugned orders dated 21.08.2018 and 29.01.2020 were set aside, and the respondent no.1 was directed to consider the compounding application of the petitioner under Section 276CC read with Section 278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2013-14 on its merit and in accordance with the law.
ORDER
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral). - The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 21.08.2018 passed by the respondent no. 1 rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking compounding of the offence under Section 276CC read with Section 278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act') for the Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2013-14, as also the order dated 29.01.2020 dismissing the application seeking review of the order dated 21.08.2018.
2. By way of the impugned Order dated 21.08.2018, the respondent no.1 rejected the prayer of the petitioner for compounding of the offences under Section 276CC read with Section 278E of the Act on the ground that the application seeking compounding of the offences has not been filed within the stipulated time and that the petitioner already stood convicted vide order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Acts) Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'ACMM') in CC No.535107/2016.
3. The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the learned ACMM. In the said appeal, the petitioner also filed an application under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure placing on record the assessment and the appellate orders passed for the relevant assessment years, that is, 2008-09 to 2013.14. Simultaneously, the petitioner also filed an application seeking review of the order dated 21.08.2018 before the respondent no.1.
4. In the appeal, the learned Special Judge-03, CBI (PCT Act), Delhi, vide order dated 03.12.2018, set aside the conviction and order of sentence, directing the learned ACMM to consider the fresh documents filed by the petitioner and pass fresh order in the trial.
5. In spite of the conviction having been set aside, the respondent no.1, vide Impugned Order dated 29.01.2020, rejected the application seeking review of the order dated 21.08.2018 filed by the petitioner, observing that the conviction of the petitioner is still open for adjudication and the petitioner has not been acquitted of the criminal charges. The relevant observation of the respondent no.1 in the impugned order is reproduced herein below:"4. I have considered the claim of the applicant assessee that the Hon 'ble Special Judge, CBI-03 (PC Act) vide his order dated 03.12.2018 in criminal appeal no. 126/2018 had set aside the order of conviction of the lower court. It is seen that the conviction of the applicant had been set aside with the directions that certain documents which were purported to be filed by the assessee before the lower court and could not be filed, should be filed by given date. It only means that conviction of the applicant decided by the lower court was still open for adjudication and does not mean that the assessee has been acquitted of the criminal charges filed by the department. In these circumstances, the assessee 's prayer for reviewing the compounding is hereby rejected. "
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter referred to as 'CBDT') vide Circular No.25/2019 dated 09.09.2019 has given one time concession relaxing the period of 12 months from the filing of the complaint as limitation for filing of the applications seeking compounding as prescribed in para 8(vii) of the Guidelines for Compounding of Offences under Direct Tax Laws, 2014 dated 23.12.2014 or in view of para 7(ii) of the Guidelines for Compounding of Offences under Direct Tax Laws, 2019 dated 14.06.2019, provided such application is filed on or before 31.12.2019 and the offence is not one which is generally/normally not compoundable. He submits that as the application seeking compounding of offence and the review application were filed before 31.12.2019 and the offence alleged against the petitioner were otherwise compoundable, the objection of limitation taken by the respondent no.1 in its impugned order dated 21.08.20
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
