TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 756
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1983-84. 4. From the statement of facts, which is appended as Annexure-A to the impugned order, the Chief Commissioner has perused the guidelines given by CBDT, dated 16.05.2008, and stated that, considering the nature, magnitude and conduct of the assessee, and that Non Bailable Warrant was issued to the assessee, and the assessee has been convicted by the Criminal Court, and when there is conviction by the competent Criminal Court, the question of compounding the offence does not arise. Accordingly, the Chief Commissioner rejected the Application. 5. To decide the correctness of the impugned order, it would be necessary to take note of the following facts:- i) The petitioner/Firm consists of two Partners, viz., M/s.V.Mohammed Athaullah. and his son M/s.Mohammed Anwarullah. The petitioner paid interest to its depositors without deducting TDS for the years 1981-82, 1983-84 and 1984-85, and for the failure to deduct TDS and remit it to the Government of India, which was criminal offence under Sections 276 B and 278 B of the Act, 24 complaints were filed against i) the Firm/accused No.1, and its partners, viz., ii) Mohammed Athaullah/accused No.2, and iii) V.Mohammed Anwaru....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umstances, it is to be seen as to whether, merely because there is conviction against the petitioner, does it prevent the Chief Commissioner from exercising his power to compound the offences. 7. This Court had an occasion to consider somewhat an identical issue, in the case of (R.Inbavalli Vs. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, and another) in W.P.No.24588 of 2016, dated 18.08.2016. In the said case, the assessee was convicted on account of the fact that she filed returns belatedly, and the compounding application was pending before the Principal Chief Commissioner, and in the meantime, the assessee approached the Hon'ble Finance Minister, Government of India, who rejected the application for compounding her case. This Court was called upon to decide the question as to how the power of compounding of offence should be exercised by a Chief Commissioner, and this Court took note of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the case of (Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes and others Vs. Umayal Ramanatha) reported in (2009) 313 ITR 59 (Mad), and disposed of the said Writ Petition. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the operativ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the respondent, where the trial court alone convicted her and the appeal is pending, is discriminatory. Now we look into Section 279 (2) of the Act, which reads as under:- "279.Prosecution to be at instance of Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. (1) .... (2) Any offence under this Chapter may either before or after the institution of proceedings, be compounded by the Chief Commissioner or a Director General...." It is evident from Section 279 (2) of the Act that any offence under this Chapter may either before or after the institution of proceedings, be compounded by the Chief Commissioner or a Director General. The term 'proceedings' is not defined in the Income Tax Act, 1961. The term 'proceedings' is a term of wide amplitude and comprehensive and generally speaking means a prescribed course of action for enforcing a legal right. It is not a technical expression with a definite meaning attached to it, but one the ambit of whose meaning would be governed by statute. In this context, it is useful to refer to the below mentioned decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court. i) Babu Lal vs. M/s. Hazari La....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. The said appeal is also a proceeding as contemplated under Section 279 (2) of the Act. For the discussions above, this Court is of the considered view that pending appeal, the appellants can very well compound the offence sought for by the respondent, which they failed. It is not out of context to mention that in earlier occasion, the appellants have allowed the application for compounding of offence filed by similarly placed assessee, who was convicted by trial court, his appeal was also dismissed, he filed revision and in the said revision, the appellants have filed Crl.M.P. No. 984 of 2000 in Crl.R.C. No. 588 of 1996 and obtained leave from the Court to consider it. While so, the appellants have refused to exercise such power in the case on hand by misinterpreting Section 279 (2) of the Act, which is unfair. The learned single Judge considered the above said facts and rightly set aside the order passed by the third appellant, hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected W.A.M.P. No. 540 of 2003 is closed. In view of the fact that the respondent is aged about 83 years, who has filed the petition for compounding as early as on 09.04.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S.C. 1893, held that the law declared by the highest court in the State is binding on authorities, or tribunals under its superintendence, and that they cannot ignore it, either in initiating a proceeding or deciding on the rights involved in such a proceeding. Taking note of the scope of the guidelines, this Court was of the view that the competent Authority was entitled to examine the merits of each matter, and to take decision as to whether the facts make out a case for compounding the offence, even in cases, where there is conviction by a Court of law. 9. In the instant case, the matter has been pending since 1999, and there has been no progress. The respondent/Department stated that the petitioner/Firm was an accused. Furthermore, the Principal Sessions Court, while granting permission to the respondent to consider the petitioner's Application for compounding the offence, in its order, dated 28.04.2015, observed that the offences are compoundable in nature, therefore, leave is granted to the competent Authority to compound the offence. 10. Though Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopda, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Department contended that the Hon'ble High Co....