Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for compounding an offence under section 276C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the basic compounding fee is to be computed as 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded or 100% of the amount of income sought to be evaded.
Analysis: The compounding guidelines prescribed 100% of the amount sought to be evaded for offences under section 276C(1). The expression had to be read in the context of section 276C(1), which penalises wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty or interest and links the severity of punishment to the amount sought to be evaded. On that construction, the relevant base for compounding was the tax component arising from the addition, not the entire amount of income disallowed. The departmental computation therefore treated the income addition as the base instead of the tax sought to be evaded.
Conclusion: The basic compounding fee was required to be computed on the amount of tax sought to be evaded, and not on the amount of income sought to be evaded. The petitioner's challenge succeeded.
Final Conclusion: The impugned compounding computation was set aside and the authority was directed to make a fresh computation on the correct basis, with refund of any excess already paid.
Ratio Decidendi: Where compounding guidelines prescribe a fee as a percentage of the amount sought to be evaded for an offence under section 276C(1), the expression must be construed in the statutory context as referring to the tax sought to be evaded and not the gross amount of income added.