https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5748 An alleged compromise or understanding with tax authorities could not defeat prosecution for wilful attempt to evade tax because the record did not establish any binding assurance against penal action, and that factual claim could not justify quashing proceedings at the threshold. Section 279(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held to be an enabling provision that allows compounding before or after institution of proceedings at the competent authority's discretion, but it does not confer a right to prior show-cause notice or a pre-prosecution opportunity to compound. The prosecution was restored and the application under Section 482 was dismissed. en-us Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jan 2018 17:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5748 An alleged compromise or understanding with tax authorities could not defeat prosecution for wilful attempt to evade tax because the record did not establish any binding assurance against penal action, and that factual claim could not justify quashing proceedings at the threshold. Section 279(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held to be an enabling provision that allows compounding before or after institution of proceedings at the competent authority's discretion, but it does not confer a right to prior show-cause notice or a pre-prosecution opportunity to compound. The prosecution was restored and the application under Section 482 was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5748