Tax authority's rejection of compounding application for TDS default overturned despite previous approvals for similar cases

Gujarat HC quashed orders rejecting compounding application under Section 279(2) for TDS default prosecution under Section 276B. Petitioner had deposited outstanding tax, interest and fees, making them eligible for compounding. Court found respondent authority incorrectly rejected application despite previously allowing compounding for similar TDS defaults in other assessment years due to financial hardship. Authority failed to consider petitioner's consistent financial crisis from 2012-13 onwards as valid reason. Matter remanded for reconsideration under CBDT guidelines dated 14.06.2019 with stringent conditions for repeated defaults.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the rejection of the compounding application under Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Compliance with the guidelines for compounding of offences as per the CBDT circular dated 14.06.2019.
3. Consideration of financial hardship as a reasonable cause under Section 278AA of the Act.
4. Application of restrictions on compounding offences on more than three occasions.
5. Requirement of prior approval from the committee for compounding charges exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/-.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Rejection of the Compounding Application:

The petitioner challenged the orders dated 17.03.2022, which declined the compounding of offences under Section 276B of the Income Tax Act for assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019. The petitioner argued that the rejection was primarily based on habitual non-depositing of TDS without considering the financial hardships faced. The court found that the rejection was contrary to the guidelines, as the petitioner had already deposited the outstanding tax, interest, and late fees, making them eligible for compounding.

2. Compliance with the Guidelines for Compounding of Offences:

The guidelines issued by the CBDT on 14.06.2019 require that for compounding charges exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/-, prior approval from a committee of three officers is necessary. The court observed that the impugned orders lacked such approval, rendering them contrary to the guidelines. The guidelines also provide that compounding is not a right but can be granted based on the eligibility conditions, conduct, and nature of the offence.

3. Consideration of Financial Hardship as a Reasonable Cause:

The petitioner contended that the financial difficulties faced over several years constituted a reasonable cause under Section 278AA, which should prevent punishment. The court noted that the financial hardship was accepted as a reason in previous years for compounding similar offences, and thus, it should have been considered in the current application as well.

4. Application of Restrictions on Compounding Offences on More Than Three Occasions:

The guidelines generally restrict compounding of Category 'A' offences on more than three occasions unless exceptional circumstances are present. The court highlighted that the respondent should have considered the discretion allowed under the guidelines to relax these restrictions, especially given the petitioner's financial crisis since 2012-2013.

5. Requirement of Prior Approval from the Committee:

The court emphasized that for compounding charges exceeding Rs. 10,00,000/-, as was the case for the assessment years in question, prior approval from the designated committee was mandatory. The absence of such approval in the impugned orders was a significant procedural lapse.

Conclusion:

The court set aside the impugned orders under Section 279(2) of the Act and remanded the matter back to the respondent authority for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to follow the guidelines for compounding offences, including obtaining the necessary committee approval and considering the petitioner's financial hardships. The notice was discharged, and the matter was to be reconsidered in light of the CBDT circular dated 14.06.2019.

---