TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....same and also direct the first respondent to reconsider the compounding petition filed by the petitioner. 2.It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is an income tax assessee with PAN No.AEFPC8443J. The petitioner claimed that he had been regularly filing the income tax returns. However, for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14, there had been so many issues in the family of the petitioner, as a number of litigations had to be faced by the petitioner and his family members. Therefore, the petitioner could not file returns for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 in time. The returns had been filed for the said assessment year only in 2017 and 2018 and in respect of such belated filing, the respondent revenue thought ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submitted to both the first and second respondents dated 18.09.2017 and 26.09.2017 has submitted that, there has been proceedings under SARFAESI Act against the family members of the petitioner and also proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been initiated against the petitioner and in view of these litigations and other allied actions, which were to be dealt with by the petitioner alone during the relevant point of time, he could not concentrate in the accounting matter especially in the context of income tax returns for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. 4.In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, it is not an intentional default of the petitioner assessee in fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, no plausible reason has been given by the petitioner for invoking the provision of Section 279 (2) of IT Act. In this regard, after sanction order passed by the first respondent, the prosecution was launched, where the matter has been taken into cognizance by the concerned Court, where summons also was issued against the petitioner. Therefore, at this juncture, since the petitioner has come out with an application invoking Section 279(2) of the IT Act, for compounding the offence, that too without any acceptable or plausible reasons, the same has been rightly rejected by the first respondent through the impugned order dated 03.05.2018. Therefore, the said order cannot be said to be unjustifiable and unsustainable. Accordingly, the same m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioner for compounding the offence by exercising his power under Section 279(2) of the IT Act. 8.However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reasoning cited by the petitioner in his request for compounding the offence has not been considered in proper perspective and only a crisp order has been passed, where the plea of the petitioner since has been rejected, the same can be interfered with, he contended. 9.Insofar as the said plea raised by the petitioner is concerned, I have perused the order dated 03.05.2018, which reads thus: "I, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai, in exercise of powers vested in me by virtue of the proisions of sub-section 2 of section 279 of the Income-tax Act, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, since the same has not been filed, which was belatedly filed, it attracts the penal provisions under Section 276 CC (ii) of the IT Act and therefore, Sanction under Section 279 of the IT Act was given. Insofar as the belated filing of income tax return for other year, that is, assessment year 2012-13, no such prosecution was launched, it seems. 12.This has been exactly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reason for non-filing of return or belated filing of return for the two or three assessment years consecutively is because of the calamities, which he pointed out in his representation, taken place in his family, where there has been a lot of litigations, which had to be faced by the family of the petitioner....