TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 609
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The facts required to be noticed for the disposal of the petition are that M/s. Anil Tools and Forgings, Basti Danishmandan, Jalandhar through its partner Shri Anil Kumar son of the late Shri Chunni Lal and its three other partners (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner-firm"), is engaged in the business of manufacturing various types of hand tools. On October 22, 1993, the petitioner-firm filed its return showing a total income of Rs.4,12,810 for the assessment year 1993-94. On January 11, 1994, the return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, "the Act"). Thereafter the case was picked up for scrutiny and after issuing statutory notice under section 143(2), assessment under section 143(3) of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a fine of Rs. 500 each under sections 276C(2) and 278B of the Act. Finally, it was prayed that the writ petition be allowed. 4. The claim of the petitioner-firm has been hotly contested by the respondent contending therein that the writ petition is devoid of any substantial question of law since the Department, vide letter dated December 11, 1997, communicated the petitioner-firm whether it intended to avail of an opportunity of compounding of the offence, but it refused to avail of this opportunity. Denying most of the assertions made by the petitioner-firm, it was finally prayed that the writ petition, bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the aver....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... present petitioners by a criminal court, if so, its effect ? 8. There is no denying the fact that prosecution proceedings against the present petitioners were launched on March 29, 1996 and vide letter dated December 11, 1997, which was sent to the petitioners, they were called upon to avail of an opportunity of compounding the offence and in order to effectively adjudicate upon the point involved in the present petition, we deem it necessary to refer to the contents of letter dated December 11, 1997, which reads thus : "You are requested to intimate the undersigned by the return of mail whether you intend to avail of the opportunity of compounding the prosecution launched in your case for the assessment year 1993-94." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....afterthought, which fact is clearly evident from the order dated August 14, 2006 whereby the present petitioners were convicted and sentenced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. Record clearly spells out that prior to the application dated February 16, 2008, similar applications dated February 24, 2007 and August 25, 2007 filed by the petitioner-firm were also rejected. It is in this context that application for compounding of offence was not moved by the petitioner-firm before the conviction order passed by the criminal court. In such like circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the application for compounding of offence was moved after the conviction order passed by the criminal court and therefore, the question of c....