1998 (10) TMI 3

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udgment BY THE COURT :--- Leave granted. 2. In respect of the asst. yrs. 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 returns were filed by the respondent, after search and seizure had taken place under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961. Returns were filed belatedly and the assessments which were made were at a figure more than what was the returned income. Prosecution was launched against the respondent all....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) of s. 279. The High Court came to the conclusion that the assessment made was in pursuance of a mutual understanding therefore, no penal action could be taken against the respondent and, further that he was not afforded an opportunity to compound the matter under s. 279(2) prior to the institution of the prosecution and therefore its initiation was not valid. 3. In our opinion, the decisio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....contention of the respondent's counsel. The question whether there was any understanding or not, even if it could have been there, is one of fact which will have to be proved before the trial Court. 4. We further find that sub-s. (2) of s. 279 is a provision which enables the Chief CIT or the Director General to compound any offence either before or after the institution of proceeding. There is....