Back
- : 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI)
ON THE 27th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 21950 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1.
RAMESH JAIN S/O SHRI RATANLAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 57
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/O 16-B BAKHTAWAR RAM
NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
JINESH JAIN S/O SHRI RATANLAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 16-B BAKHTAWAR RAM NAGAR,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(SHRI SHAILENDRA SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONERS )
AND
1.
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
AAYAKAR BHAWAN NEAR WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2.
PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX M.P. AND
C.G. AAYAKAR BHAWAN HOSHANGABAD ROAD BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
SARDARMAL JAIN S/O SHRI SUKHLAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 66
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 221 TELEPHONE NAGAR
INDORE, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.
YOGESH JAIN S/O SHRI SARDARMAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 42
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 221 TELEPHONE NAGAR
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
5.
CHANDRAPRABHU HOMES PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
REGD OFFICE 16 WAREHOUSE ROAD INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT )
- : 2 :-
This petition coming on for orders this day, JUSTICE VIVEK
RUSIA passed the following:
ORDER
Petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the
validity of the order dated 10.12.2021 passed under Section 278(2)
of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'IT
Act,1961'') whereby the request of the petitioners for compounding
the offence has been turned down.
The facts of the case are in short as under:
[1]
The petitioners are the director of the Company M/s
Chandraphabhu Homes Pvt. Ltd ( respondent No.5). The company
is engaged in the business of purchase, sale and development of
plots. According to the petitioners without their knowledge, they
were unlawfully removed from the directorship of the company
w.e.f.12.04.2006 for which they have challenged before Company
Law Board and vide order dated 12.09.2011, their removal has been
declared null and void and restored status quo ante as on dated
12.04.2006.
[2]
Vide assessment order dated 21.12.2008, the Assessment
Officer assessed the income of the company Rs.4,63,140/- for the
assessment year 2006-2007 and accordingly raised demand of
Rs.2,07,338/- with a fine of Rs.3,50,000/-. Thereafter, respondent
No.1 filed a complaint on 28.03.2012 before JMFC, Indore for
prosecution under Section 276 C (1) (i) of the IT Act, 1961.
According to the petitioners they have deposited the tax as well as
penalty on 22.03.2011, 08.08.2012 and 01.06.2013. Vide judgment
dated 04.10.2019 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate
- : 3 :-
(CBI and Economic Offences) the petitioners have been convicted
under Section 276 C (1) (i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and
sentenced with 6 months S.I. and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default
of payment of fine additional simple imprisonment for 15 days.
[3]
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction, the petitioners
have preferred Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C.
which is pending as Criminal Appeal No.299/2019 before the
Session Court. The petitioners applied to respondent No.1 seeking
compounding of the above offence under circular dated 09.09.2019
issued by the Government of India Ministry of Finance, Department
of Revenue. Simultaneously, in the pending criminal appeal, the
petitioners filed an application under Section 320 (5) of the Cr.P.C.
seeking permission for the compounding of the offence. Vide order
dated 01.11.2021, the learned Session judge dismissed the
application that after conviction, no compounding can be done
under the aforesaid circular.
[4]
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners
preferred Criminal Revision No.3177/2021 before this
