Petition to Quash Order for Compounding Offence under Income-tax Act Dismissed: Court Upholds Chief Commissioner's Discretion

The petition seeking to quash the order rejecting the application for compounding of the offence under the Income-tax Act, 1961 was dismissed. The court found that although the offence could be compounded even after conviction, the discretionary powers of the Chief Commissioner were not to be interfered with unless there were grounds of factual or legal mala fides or perversity. As the petitioners were already convicted and no illegal action by the authority was demonstrated, the court ruled that the rejection of the application was lawful, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

---

---

Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of order rejecting application for compounding of offence under Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The petitioners sought to quash an order rejecting their application for compounding of an offence under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners had been convicted for alleged wilful concealment of income, and their appeal was pending in the Appellate Court. The trial court had convicted the petitioners after the declared income was not accepted. Subsequently, the petitioners applied for compounding of the offence to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Chandigarh, which was rejected based on an earlier order and the conviction. The petitioners argued that since the offence could be compounded even after conviction, the rejection was against the law.

The court analyzed Section 279(2) of the Act, which allows for the compounding of offences by the Chief Commissioner. It was noted that the mere provision for compounding of the offence does not automatically warrant the issuance of a mandamus to compound the offence. The court emphasized that discretionary powers of a statutory authority can only be interfered with on grounds of factual or legal mala fides or perversity. In this case, the petitioners were already convicted, and while the power to compound the offence could be exercised even after conviction, this alone was not sufficient to compel the authority to do so. The court highlighted that neither a legal right of the petitioner was infringed nor was it demonstrated that the authority acted illegally. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

---