https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385291 The court held that the DGIT lacked jurisdiction to pass the order on compounding non-technical offences, as it should have been handled by a specific Committee as per CBDT Guidelines. The reduction of penalty by the Commissioner should preclude prosecution, and the DGIT's refusal to compound the offences was deemed unjustified. The court remanded the matter to the Committee for reconsideration within 60 days, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the petitioner to file a fresh compounding petition. The writ petition was allowed with no costs. en-us Wed, 28 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Aug 2022 16:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385291 The court held that the DGIT lacked jurisdiction to pass the order on compounding non-technical offences, as it should have been handled by a specific Committee as per CBDT Guidelines. The reduction of penalty by the Commissioner should preclude prosecution, and the DGIT's refusal to compound the offences was deemed unjustified. The court remanded the matter to the Committee for reconsideration within 60 days, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the petitioner to file a fresh compounding petition. The writ petition was allowed with no costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385291