TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court Orders Reconsideration of Tax Offence Compounding Application with New Evidence for Fair Adjudication.</h1> The court set aside the orders rejecting the application for compounding offences under the Income Tax Act, specifically under Sections 276C(1), 276D, and ... Compounding of offences punishable u/s 276C(1), 276D and 277 - petitioner’s application was rejected as, according to the concerned officer, the petitioner had failed to furnish the complete bank statements of the accounts maintained by him in the Geneva Branch of HSBC Bank - it is the stand of the petitioner that consent waiver forms were, in fact, provided - HELD THAT:- We are informed by the petitioner that, in any event, bank statements for the period spanning between 31.12.1993 and 24.03.2011 of the accounts maintained by the petitioner with the aforementioned branch of the HSBC Bank are available. Revenue, says that had the petitioner straightaway given the bank statements before the compounding application was considered, the matter would not have come to this pass. We are informed that, the petitioner had furnished the bank statements in November, 2019 as well, albeit after the impugned order was passed. Given the aforesaid position, we are of the view that the best way forward would be to direct the concerned officer to decide the petitioner’s compounding application afresh, since, in any event, the bank statements are now available with the respondents/revenue. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. The concerned authority will adjudicate the petitioner’s compounding application dated 22.02.2016 afresh. In case any further information is required, written communication(s) in that behalf will be addressed to the petitioner. Petitioner and/or his authorised representative will also be accorded personal hearing in the matter by the concerned officer.The concerned officer will endeavour to dispose of the compounding application at the earliest, though not later than eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Till such time the concerned officer disposes of the compounding application dated 22.02.2016 and for a period of three (3) weeks thereafter, in case an adverse order is passed, the interim order dated 18.11.2019 will continue to operate. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Issues involved:The judgment involves challenges to orders rejecting application for compounding offences under Income Tax Act, rejection of application for rectifying previous order, and seeking mandamus for compounding offences.Challenge to Order dated 09.03.2018:The petitioner challenged the order rejecting the application for compounding offences punishable under Sections 276C(1), 276D, and 277 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2006-07. The rejection was based on the petitioner's alleged failure to provide complete bank statements of accounts maintained at the Geneva Branch of HSBC Bank. The petitioner contended that consent waiver forms were provided, and bank statements for the relevant period were available. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the concerned officer to decide the compounding application afresh, considering the now available bank statements.Challenge to Order dated 30.05.2019:Additionally, the petitioner challenged the order dated 30.05.2019, which rejected the application for rectifying the initial order dated 09.03.2018. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the matter but directed the concerned authority to adjudicate the compounding application dated 22.02.2016 afresh. The petitioner will be accorded a personal hearing, and a speaking order will be passed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.Mandamus for Compounding Offences:Apart from the challenges to the previous orders, the petitioner sought a mandamus for compounding the offences under the specified provisions for the period in question. Alternatively, the petitioner requested a de novo consideration of the application dated 22.02.2016. An interlocutory prayer was made to stay further proceedings in complaints related to the Act. The court disposed of the writ petition with directions for the concerned officer to decide the compounding application afresh, ensuring a fair process and timely disposal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
