IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.10.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP.No.22267 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.21655 and 21656 of 2024 M/s.New Chennai Township Private Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory, S.Padmanabhan

4/318, Marg Axis, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kottivakkam, Chennai – 600 041.

Having Administrative Office at

15/26, 2^nd Main Road Kottur Garden, Kotturpuram, Chennai – 600 085. .... Petitioner Vs.

1.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS)

Aayakar Bhavan, Main Building 3^rd Floor, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle -2, Chennai. ... Respondents Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent in F.No.Compounding/CHEN05723E/2021-22 u/s 279(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 03.12.2021 in the case of the petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to permit the compounding applications for the assessment year 2013-14 in accordance with law.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Veerabathran Prasanth For Respondents : Mr.B.Ramasamy Senior Standing Counsel

O R D E R

The present Writ Petition has been filed to call for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent in F.No.Compounding/CHEN05723E/2021-22 u/s 279(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 03.12.2021 in the case of the petitioner and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to permit the compounding applications for the assessment year 2013-14 in accordance with law.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a complaint was filed for non-payment of TDS on 24.05.2018. Subsequent to filing of the compliant, the petitioner had filed TDS. Therefore, the Director of the petitioner has filed an application for compounding before the office of the 1^st respondent on 13.07.2020. However, the said application was dismissed citing the reason that it is barred by limitation. However, it has been mentioned that TDS amount has been deposited by the petitioner. He further submitted that the entire amount has been paid before filing the compounding application and after the complaint. Hence, the impugned order 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).

3. Learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondents would submit that, in the present case, the tax amount has been deposited by the petitioner subsequent to the initiation of the prosecution. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials placed before this Court.

5. In the present case, as far as limitation is concerned, the issue is covered by the Judgement of this Court in the case of Jayshree(supra) and hence, fixing the limitation for fling application for compounding will be contrary to law as held by this Court in the said judgement. For better appreciation, Paragraph Nos.12 to 25 of Jayshree(supra) is extracted hereunder:

“ 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 re-invested the sale consideration in purchase of another immovable property. Further, since she is not an income tax assessee and she had re-invested the sale consideration in another property, she believed that she is not liable to pay any tax in terms of the IT Act. However, she had filed her income tax returns belatedly on 13.06.2016.

13. Subsequent to the filing of returns, the respondent had prosecuted the petitioner for delay in filing of the returns on 14.09.2016. Thereafter, the pet