Court Quashes Income Tax Order, Emphasizes Chief Commissioner's Discretion in Compounding Offence Applications.

The HC quashed the order dated 1st June 2021 by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Mumbai, rejecting the petitioners' application for compounding an offence under Section 276B, read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that CBDT Guidelines could not restrict the statutory powers under Section 279(2) and emphasized the Chief Commissioner's discretion in compounding applications. The case was remanded for fresh consideration, directing a decision within thirty days, and stayed the pending criminal proceedings in the City Sessions Court. The challenge to the CBDT Circular's validity remains open for future consideration.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the application for compounding of an offence under Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the CBDT Guidelines can impose a limitation period for filing applications for compounding offences.
3. The applicability of the CBDT Circulars and Guidelines to the facts of the case.
4. The jurisdiction and discretion of the Chief Commissioner under Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act.
5. The impact of pending criminal proceedings on the application for compounding of offences.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of the Application for Compounding of an Offence:
The petitioners challenged the order dated 1st June 2021 by respondent no.3-Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Mumbai, which rejected their application for compounding an offence committed under Section 276B, read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners argued that they had deposited the entire TDS amount along with interest before any demand or show cause notice was issued.

2. Limitation Period for Filing Applications for Compounding Offences:
The petitioners contended that the CBDT Circulars No.25/2019 and 01/2020, which provide a twelve-month period for filing compounding applications, cannot override the statutory provisions of Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act. The court noted that the guidelines could not curtail the statutory powers vested in the authorities under Section 279(2).

3. Applicability of CBDT Circulars and Guidelines:
The respondents relied on the CBDT Circulars and Guidelines, specifically paragraph 8.1(vii) of the Compounding Guidelines, 2019, to argue that the petitioners were ineligible for compounding. The petitioners countered that these guidelines were inapplicable as they had not been convicted under any Indirect Tax Law but under Direct Tax Laws. The court found that the guidelines could not impose a limitation period that would restrict the statutory powers under Section 279(2).

4. Jurisdiction and Discretion of the Chief Commissioner:
The court observed that Section 279(2) allows for the compounding of offences either before or after the institution of proceedings, including during the pendency of an appeal. The court emphasized that the Chief Commissioner has the discretion to consider applications for compounding at any stage of the proceedings, and this discretion could not be fettered by the guidelines.

5. Impact of Pending Criminal Proceedings:
The petitioners argued that the pending appeal before the Sessions Court should not preclude the consideration of their application for compounding. The court agreed, noting that the pendency of an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and does not bar the application for compounding.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned order dated 1st June 2021, which rejected the application for compounding, and remanded the matter back to respondent no.3 for fresh consideration on its merits. The court directed respondent no.3 to dispose of the application within thirty days and stayed the criminal proceedings pending before the City Sessions Court until the application for compounding is decided. The challenge to the validity of clause 7(ii) of the CBDT Circular was left open for future consideration if the petitioners are aggrieved by the fresh order.

---