TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 249
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the Appellant that the order passed by the Respondent is contrary to the guide lines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in F.No.285/90/2008IT (Inv.)/12 dated 16.05.2008. It is further stated that the learned Judge failed to consider the fact that the order of the 1st Respondent is also liable to be set aside for the reason that the impugned order has been passed by the said authority without constituting a proper quorum to adjudicate compounding application and as per the above guidelines of the CBDT stated above, all the applications for compounding of non-technical offences[which includes 276C(1) should be decided by the Committee consisting of (i) CCIT (CCA), (ii) DGIT (Inv.) and CCIT/DGIT having jurisdiction over the case. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the Survey was conducted on 01.06.2006 in the premises of Bellary Steel & Alloys Limited and that later it was found that the Company by name C.R.N Investments Private Limited represented by its Managing Director Ms.Surekha Raghavendran who is approximately aged about 74 years as on date had filed regular return under Section 143 (3) read with Section 147 claiming 30% depreciatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espectively." 4. It is further submitted that as far as Assessment Year 1996-1997 is concerned, the matter came up to this High Court in T.C.A.No.155 of 2007 and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 13.02.2014, has remitted the matter back to the Tribunal, in respect of imposition of penalty is concerned. It is submitted that the Tribunal, by its order dated 28.02.2017 dropped the penalty. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that this Court vide order dated 28.08.2019 in W.P.No.3929 of 2014 in the case of K.M.Mammen Vs. The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) has remitted the case back to the Committee prescribed under the CBDT Guidelines No.7.1 (c) dated 16.05.2008 and the Petitioner therein was granted liberty to place the copy of the aforesaid order along with afresh compounding petitioner under Section 279 of the Income Tax Act, before the Committee, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and on receipt of the same, the Committee was directed to consider the same in the light of the observation made therein and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of 60 days there from and in re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....subjected to penalty, no useful purpose would be served by prosecuting the Appellant at this distant of time because she took advantage of the legal remedy available under law. This Court in the case of K.M.Mammen Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2022 445 ITR 266 referred to supra as examined also and answered the point as follows. "33. As per 2019 guidelines in Circular bearing reference F.No.285/08/2014-IT (Inv-V)/147 dated 14.06.2019, cases involving any offence which has a bearing on an offence relating to undisclosed foreign bank account / assets in any manner are not to be normally compounded. 34. Similarly, as per Clause (xiii) of the same Circular, any other offence, which the Pr.CCIT/CCIT/Pr.DGIT/DGIT concerned considers not fit for compounding in view of factors such as conduct of the person, nature and magnitude of the offence.", are not be normally compounded. 35. As per para 4.2 of Circular in F.No.285/90/2008- IT (Inv.)/12 dated 16th May 2008, application can be considered if tax, interest, penalties or any other sum payable relating to default is paid and the applicant under takes to pay the compounding fee as per para 9.5. 36. As per para....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or directions (including instructions or directions to obtain the previous approval of the Board) to other Income Tax authorities for the proper composition of offences under this section." 10.The Explanation is in the nature of a proviso to Section 279(2) of the Act with the result that the exercise of power by the Commissioner under the said section has to be subject to the instructions issued by the Board from time to time. The Explanation empowers the Board to issue orders, instructions or directions for the proper composition of the offences under Section 279(2) of the Act and further specifically provides that directions for obtaining previous approval of the Board can also be issued. Reading Section 279(2) along with the Explanation, there is no manner of doubt that the Commissioner has to exercise the discretion under Section 279(2) of the Act in conformity with the instructions issued by the Board from time to time. 11. We allow the appeals, set aside the High Court judgments dated November 30, 1990 in both the cases and dismiss the writ petitions filed by Tiwari and Passi. No costs. 40. The petitioner is now over 70 years and has been facing prosecution for over a p....