TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned order dated 16.03.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a criminal proceedings was initiated by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner for the default in filing return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 before the Economic Offences Court, Chennai Court on 27.07.2016 in EOCC No.118 of 2016 and the same is pending as on date before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EO - I, Egmore, Chennai. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner filed an application for compounding the offences on 15.09.2023. However, the 2nd respondent vide impugned order dated 16.03.2024, rejected the compounding application of the petitioner o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion, the relevant portion of the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2968 & 2970 is extracted hereunder:- "11. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the materials available on record, particularly the said circular and the case laws produced before this Court by the petitioner as well as the respondents. 12. It appears that in the present case, the petitioner had purchased an immovable property on 05.06.2006 and further, she had sold the said property on 05.02.2013. After the sale of the said property, she had reinvested the sale consideration in purchase of another immovable property. Further, since she is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2016. Hence, according to the respondent, the application for compounding of offences was supposed to be filed by the petitioner on or before 13.09.2017. However, the said application was filed only on 14.09.2021 i.e., beyond the period of prescribed time limit. 15. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fixation of time limit of 12 months for filing the application for compounding of offences is not in accordance with the Section 279(2) of the IT Act, which reads as follows: "279. Prosecution to be at instance of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or 4 Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.- (1) ........................... (2) Any offence u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rary to the object of the said provisions. The explanation, which empowers the CBDT to issue circular, is only for the purpose of implementation of the provisions of the Act with regard to the compounding of offences and not for the purpose of fixing time limit for filing the application for compounding of offences and 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. 19. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the CBDT is not empowered to fix the time limit for filing the application for compounding of offences, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 279(2) of the IT Act. Thus in terms of Section 279(2) of the IT Act, the petitioner can file the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts were advanced before the other Courts in this aspect. Empowering the CBDT to issue the circular, guidelines, notification will not ipso facto validate the contents of the circular issued by it. The contents of the circular will always be challengeable. The power of CBDT to issue the circular is entirely different aspect from challenging the contents of the circular. Therefore, the said Judgments will not be applicable for the issue decided by this Court. 22. From the above discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the respondent, rejecting the application for compounding of offences on a sole ground that it is barred by limitation, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 20.08.202....