TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (2) TMI 116
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, Delhi. The petitioner is a doctor practising at Chennai. He is also a shareholder of a company. He derives income from business and profession. In the assessment year 1985-86, the return of income was due to be filed on July 31, 1985. The same was filed on March 29, 1988. A complaint under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was filed before the ACMM, EO(I), Madras. Vide judgment dated April 19, 1996, the petitioner was held guilty of the offence charged and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the court of Sessions Judge, Madras, and, vide judgment dated August 12, 1996, the petitioner's conviction has been maintained though the sentence of im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Direct Taxes and having suffered its dismissal, has invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court at Delhi, within whose territorial jurisdiction, no cause of action has arisen to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes has passed the impugned order dated January 8, 1997, at Delhi and in face of that order, no authority of the Income-tax Department subordinate to the Central Board of Direct Taxes would now entertain the petitioner's prayer to compound. The petitioner has to seek quashing of the order of the Central Board of Direct Taxes for which purpose the petition filed at Delhi is competent. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dment is clarificatory and declaratory in nature. Some doubts must have been expressed if the power of the Board to issue orders, instructions or directions under the Act (obviously referable to section 119(1) of the Act), included the power to issue instructions or directions for the proper composition of offences under section 279. The doubts have been removed by declaring that such power was so included and thereby setting at rest the doubts, if any. The Explanation is thus in the nature of a proviso to section 279(2) of the Act as held in Y. P. Chawla v. M. P. Tiwari [1992] 195 ITR 607 (SC), and has also to be read as clarificatory and declaratory of the scope of power of the Board emanating from section 119. Section 119, as it stand....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd having turned down the petitioner's such attempt. The petitioner would have been better advised to approach the Chief Commissioner or the Director-General as contemplated by section 279(2). Any communication between any of them and the Board would have been an internal matter between the two. The petitioner is still at liberty to approach the Chief Commissioner or the Director-General which he does not appear to have done so far. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the Board has turned down his petition under section 279, howsoever misconceived it might have been, no income-tax authority subordinate to the Board would have power to entertain the petitioner's prayer for compounding in face of the order of the Central....