TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 36
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant refusing to exercise its power conferred under Section 279 (2) of The Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as Act to compound the offence. 2. The facts involved in this case is that the respondent herein was prosecuted by the appellants for the offence under Section 120-B, 420 read with Section 109 IPC and Section 278 of the Act before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Egmore, Madras in EO C.C. No. 637 of 1985 and by order dated 30.11.1998, the said Court convicted and sentenced the respondent herein to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under each of the offences under Section 120B, 420 read with 109 of IPC and under Section 278 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 984 of 2000 in Crl.R.C. No. 588 of 1996, even though the respondent-accused therein was also convicted and whose conviction was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Court. 3. If that be so, the refusal of the third respondent to consider the request of the petitioner to compound the offence in the instant case, by exercising the power conferred on him under Section 279 (2) of the Income Tax Act is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory and therefore, I am obliged to quash the impugned proceedings and direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for compounding the offence said to have been committed by him in spite of his conviction and pass appropriate orders on merits expeditiously, in any event within ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellants accepted the plea of the said assessee and went to the extent of filing Crl.M.P. No. 984 of 2000 in Crl.R.C. No. 588 of 1996 seeking leave of the Court to permit them to entertain the application under Section 279 (2) and ultimately compounded the offence, while so, adopting a different yardstick in the case of the respondent and refusing to compound the offence on the sole ground that she was convicted by the trial court is discriminatory, besides it is unsustainable in law and prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal. 5. This Court carefully considered the submission of counsel for both sides. The plea of the respondent is that Section 279 (2) of the Act permits the appellants to compound the offence either before or after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned 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 Lal Kishori Lal and others) AIR 1982 SC 818 wherein in Para-17, it was held thus:- "17. The word 'proceeding' is not defined in the Act. Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines it as carrying of an action at law, a legal action or process; any act done by authority of a Court of law; any step taken in a cause by either party. The term 'proceeding' is a very comprehensive term 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Co." 10. In the case on hand, against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, on the complaint preferred by the appellants, the respondent has filed an appeal and the same is pending, which is a prescribed course of action for enforcing a legal right. The said appeal is also a proceeding as contemplated under Section 279 (2) of the Act. 11. 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....