High Court Of Madras
Income Tax Officer vs. Dr. K. Jagadeesan
Sections 276CC(i), 279(2)
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.
Criminal Misc. Petn to. 984 of 2000 & Criminal Ref. Case No. 588 of 1996
11th February, 2000
T. Sivanathan, for the Petitioner
V. BAKTHAVATSALU, J. :
The petition is filed by the ITO to compound the offence. The respondent/accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 under s. 276CC(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (âthe Actâ). The respondent/accused preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 46 of 1996. The appellate Court by judgment dt. 12th Aug., 1996 confirmed the conviction, but the sentence was reduced to a period of 3 months. However, the appellate Court has confirmed the sentence of fine as imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused has preferred this revision. When the revision case came up for final hearing, the complainant-ITO has filed this application seeking leave to compound the offence. It is alleged in the petition that the Chief CIT has passed an order that if the petitioner/accused agrees to pay compounding fee of Rs. 10,000, the matter can be considered and the respondent has also paid the amount on 3rd Dec., 1998. It is further alleged that penalty proceeding initiated under the Act was set aside in the appeal and that the Tribunal has given a finding in favour of the accused. Sec. 279(2) of the Act confers the discretion on the CIT to compound any offence. It is admitted that the accused has also filed an application for compounding the case. I am satisfied that the order of the Chief CIT in agreeing to compound the case, subject to leave of the Court that would be granted by the Court, is in accordance with law. As the offence is compounded, the conviction and the sentence imposed on the accused are liable to be set aside.
In the result, the following order is passed. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed, leave to compound the offence is granted.
[Citation : 257 ITR 476]