TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 332
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....being so, the Income Tax Department filed complaints dated 27.03.1986 against the Company and Directors under section 276B of Income Tax Act before the Court of CMM for all the three Assessment Years. The complaint for the Assessment Year 1982-83 is still at trial stage. As regards the complaints for the years 1983-84 and 1984-85, the Ld. ACMM awarded simple imprisonment of three months for the two Directors of the company and a fine of 7,000/- on the company and its two directors. Against this order, the Department has filed a revision petition for enhancement of sentence, and the petitioner has filed appeal against the conviction, both of which are pending before the Addl. Session's Judge, Delhi. 2. On 31.05.1986, (two months afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppear before Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi-I, C.R.Building on 22.08.2005 or any other date, that may be convenient to the Commissioner, who shall adjudicate as to what amount is liable to be deposited by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders regarding compounding of the offence. Petitioner shall deposit the balance amount within one week thereafter. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner be directed to deposit the amount which according to him is due and payable. Ordered accordingly." 6. Armed with this order, the petitioner through his representative approached the competent authority and put up his case for compounding of offences of all the three assessment years. However, the competent authority vid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be prudent on my part to compound these offence at this stage. Therefore, the compounding petition of the assessee for all the three years is, hereby rejected." 7. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 30.01.2006 of the CCIT. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the CCIT was under an obligation to compound the offence in view of the order dated 28.07.2005 passed by this Court directing the CIT to adjudicate as to what amount is payable to be deposited by the petitioner. He also contends that in view of the amended guidelines, the offences being technical in nature were eligible for compounding. He also contends that the proceedings for compounding of offence were proposed by the respondent itself vide its letter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for perusal. The submission of the learned counsel that it was a proposal sent by the Department to compound the offence is untenable inasmuch as this was nothing more than intimation to the petitioner regarding revision of guidelines for compounding of offences. It is also noted here that the petitioner made his own estimate of the compounding fee and the interest and deposited 11,388, 58,208 and 29,215/- on these counts for the three assessments years in question. The revised guidelines dated 29.07.2003 mentioned about the existing guidelines dated 30.09.1994 and also the amendments made therein. Part A of the revised guidelines is related to procedural amendments which are reproduced hereunder: "(A) Procedural Amendments: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), technical offences could be compounded by CCIT or DGIT if the three conditions were collectively satisfied namely (i) it is the first offence by the assessee; (ii) the compounding charge did not exceed 40 lac and (iii) the offence is compounded only before the filing of complaint. In all other cases, the technical offences as per the existing guidelines could be compounded with the approval of the Board. The amendment which came to be made in the revised guidelines of 29.07.2003 was to the effect that instead of the approval of the Board, all types of cases relating to technical offences could be compounded by CCIT and DGIT. Further distinction between first and subsequent offence was also removed. It was also specifically provided that ....