IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on: Pronounced on:

18.07.2023 17.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W.P.No.21387 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.20379 of 2022 & 1776 & 15187 of 2023 Thirupathi Kumar Khemka, No.36, Walajah Road, Chennai – 600 002. .. Petitioner Vs.

The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Room No.118, Main Building, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. .. Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the respondent in Order bearing ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1044336512(1) dated 30.07.2022 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to consider the Compounding Application of the Petitioner dated 20.11.2019 without reference to Para 8.1.(iii) of Circular bearing F.No.285/08/2014-IT(Inv.V)/147 dated 14.06.2019.

For Petitioner : Mr.Srinath Sridevan Senior Counsel for Ms.Anitha Suresh For Respondent : Mr.V.Mahalingam Senior Standing Counsel

O R D E R

By this order, the writ petition is being disposed.

2.Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent at length.

3.The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order bearing DIN &

Order No.: ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1044336512(1) dated 30.07.2022 passed by the respondent rejecting the compounding application filed by the petitioner on 20.11.2019.

4.By the impugned order dated 30.07.2022, the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner has been rejected with the following observations:-

“16. On the merits of the case, the RCC observed that the assessee had committed not one but multiple grave offences, which is exemplified by the elaborate contents of the conviction order passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-1, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 in EOCC No.184 of 2017 dated 06.03.2019. The assessee did not file the return of income voluntarily before the due dates specified under section 139 of the IT Act. There was no response to the notices u/s 142(1)

calling for return of income and information with regard to investment made in shares, expenditure incurred on credit cards etc. The assessment was completed u/s 144 of the IT Act after carrying out enquiries and obtaining additional particulars from banks on a taxable income of Rs.46,32,210/- raising a demand of Rs.38,45,340/-. It can be seen that the taxable income was arrived at Rs.46,32,210/- by making additions u/s 69 of the IT Act in respect of unexplained investment in shares and credit card expenditure u/s 2(24)(4) of the IT Act.”

5. Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the issue is no longer res integra and has been settled by plethora decisions of this Court in the following cases:-

(i) The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes and others Vs. Umayal Ramanathan MANU/TN/0829/2009, order dated 06.04.2009 in W.A.No.439 of 2023.

(ii) R.Inbavalli Vs. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and others, MANU/TN/1966/2016, order dated

18.08.2016 in W.P.No.24588 of 2016.

(iii) V.A.Haseeb and Company (Firm) Vs. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax TDS MANU/TN/2175/2016, order dated 02.09.2016 in W.P.No.32731 of 2015.

6.It is submitted that the decision of this Court in R.Inbavalli Vs.

The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and others in W.P.No.24588 of 2016 dated 18.08.2016 has also affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in The Government of India, Ministry of Finance and others Vs. R.Inbavalli order dated 05.07.2017 in W.A.Nos.132, 455 of 2017.

7.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on yet another decision of this Court in V.K.Lohia Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, order dated 11.11.2020 in W.P.No.35826 of 2016.

8.It is submitted that the impugned order denying the benefit of compounding of offences under Section 279(2) of the Incom