The main legal point established in the judgment is that compounding of an offence under the Income-tax Act requires consent from the authorities and is not a unilateral act by the accused.

S. Manikumar, J.

1. The writ petition is for a certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in the proceedings of the second respondent dated December 20, 2006, as communicated by the first respondent by order dated February 1, 2007 in EOCC No. 36/1984, and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner for compounding or withdrawal of the offences under the Indian Penal Code in the light of the spirit behind the orders of the Supreme Court dated October 9, 2006, in Criminal M.P. No. 10302 of 2006 in Criminal Appeal No. 969 of 2000 and the order of this Court dated April 21, 2006, in W.P. No. 11191 of 2006 and for further orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner had filed an application under Section 230A(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on May 12, 1983, for issue of a certificate in her favour for settling the property bearing Door No. 20, First Cross Street, Lake Area, Nungambakkam, Chennai, in the name of her minor son retaining life interest in the said property and declared the sale consideration of the said property at Rs. 2,40,000. The said declaration was assumed by the Income-tax Department to be patently false and has been made to use the same as a genuine evidence in the proceedings before the income-tax authorities which is a judicial proceedings. The Department held that the issue of certificate as required by the petitioner would entitle her to register the settlement deed as if the property was acquired for Rs. 2,40,000 as against the real value of Rs. 5,70,000 and that there would be evasion of income-tax on the balance sale consideration of Rs. 3,30,000.

3. In those circumstances, the Income-tax Department filed a complaint against the petitioner punishable under Section 193 of the Income-tax Act, read with Section 136 of the Income-tax Act, read with Sections 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 276C(1) and 277 of the Income-tax Act. The Economic Offences Court, in EOCC No. 36 of 1984, found that the petitioner was guilty, both under the provisions of the Income-tax Act and offences under the Indian Penal Code and convicted the petitioner by its judgment dated November 6, 1989. The judgment of the trial court was also confirmed by the Principal Session Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, by judgment dated August 19, 1986, in Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1989.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition in Crl. R.C. No. 648 of 1996 and this Court by order dated February 3, 2000 (P. Soundarya v. ITO ) acquitted the petitioner of offences under the Income-tax Act, however, found the petitioner guilty of the offences under the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has moved to the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 969 of 2000 and the same is pending disposal.

5. As the petitioner was acquitted of the offences under the Income-tax Act, she made a representation dated January 27, 2006, to the first respondent and sought withdrawing of the prosecution of the offences under Sections 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, in terms of guidelines of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Since the representation was pending for a considerable time, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 11191 of 2006, and this Court, by order dated April 21, 2006, directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioners representation dated January 27, 2006, and her reminder dated April 3, 2006, in terms of the guidelines issued by the first respondent in F. No. 285/161/190-I.T. (Inv.) dated September 30, 1984, within a period eight weeks from the date of receipt of the further representation from the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law and on the merits.

6. Pursuant to the abovesaid order, the second respondent, by his order dated June 20, 2006, turned down the request of the petitioner on the following ground: Only when the case is compounded under the Income-tax Act, th