2024 (10) TMI 1572

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts : Dr. B. Ramaswamy Senior Standing Counsel ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 31.05.2024 of the respondent, whereby the respondent has rejected the compounding application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the application was filed beyond the period of limitation, as stated in Para 7(ii) of the CBDT circular dated 16.09.2022. 2. The learned....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s for quashing of the impugned order. 3. Per contra, Dr.B.Ramaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, would fairly submit that this Court by virtue of the aforesaid judgment had struck down clause 7(ii) of the circular holding that it is beyond the scope of the Act. He would however submit that previously it was 12 months, but now the time limit was fixed as 24 mont....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with regard to compounding of offences and not for the purpose of fixing a time limit for filing the application for compounding of offences and therefore, the same is contrary to the provisions of the Act and hence, it is not permissible in terms of Section 279(2) of the IT Act. 6. It is the further submission of the learned Senior Standing Counsel that the petitioner is a repeated offender a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the petitioner is a habitual offender. Hence, opposed the Writ Petition. 8. As already stated above, even as per the guidelines issued by the authorities in the circular dated 06.09.2022, the petitioner cannot be considered as a habitual offender, as he has committed default only in two cases and in one case, the offence has already been compounded. 9. In such view of the matter, this Court ....