https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756069 The HC upheld the rejection of the appellant's compounding application under section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act. The court found that rejection was not solely based on prior conviction but multiple factors including the appellant's poor conduct from 1997, tax evasion mentality, non-cooperation during assessment proceedings, and filing the application belatedly after almost 20 years. The court held the default was wilful and that Circular No.25 of 2019 did not extend compounding benefits to convicted persons. Payment of tax, penalty and interest did not entitle the appellant to compounding of the offence. en-us Fri, 17 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jul 2024 11:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756069 The HC upheld the rejection of the appellant's compounding application under section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act. The court found that rejection was not solely based on prior conviction but multiple factors including the appellant's poor conduct from 1997, tax evasion mentality, non-cooperation during assessment proceedings, and filing the application belatedly after almost 20 years. The court held the default was wilful and that Circular No.25 of 2019 did not extend compounding benefits to convicted persons. Payment of tax, penalty and interest did not entitle the appellant to compounding of the offence. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 17 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756069