Case Law Details
Anil Batra Vs CCIT (Delhi High Court)- Whether when assessee has already been convicted for two AYs and the complaint filed for the third year u/s 276B, any revision of the compounding guidelines and an intimation to the assessee in this regard would mean that compounding is allowable even after the complaint is filed?
The conditions stipulated for the compounding of a technical offence under the revised guidelines of 29 July 2003 are very clear and unambiguous. The compounding of such an offence was not permissible after the filing of the complaint. Indisputably, three complaints have already been filed against the petitioner, and in two of those, the petitioner stands convicted by the competent court. The revisions for the enhancement of punishment have been filed by the department and the appeals against the conviction have also been filed by the petitioner. The revisions and the appeals are pending before the Appellate Court. One of the complaints is also still pending trial before the learned ACMM. That being the factual matrix, the offence could not be said to be compoundable at this stage. In that fact situation, the competent authority was not bound to effect the compounding in violation of the mandatory prohibitions prescribed therein.
Anil Batra Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
Decided by- Delhi High Court
W.P.(C) No. 4673/2010
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.