CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NORTH BLOCK CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI Vs. UMAYAL RAMANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2002 made in W.P. No. 33925 of 2002 of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent herein, which was filed challenging the order of the third appellant 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 Act, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence imposed by the said Court, the respondent herein has filed an appeal in C.A. No. 250 of 1998 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, which is pending. Pending disposal of the said appeal, the respondent has filed a petition under Section 279 (2) of the Act before the third appellant on 09.04.2001 to compound the offence and also expressed her willingness to pay the entire amount towards compounding fee. THE said petition was rejected by the third appellant by proceedings dated 02.08.2002 on the sole ground that already the criminal court convicted her, hence, the request for compounding the offence is not acceptable. Aggrieved by the said order dated 02.08.2002, the respondent herein has filed W.P. No. 33925 of 2002, which was allowed by this Court on 29.11.2002 quashing the said proceedings dated 02.08.2002 of the third appellant herein, in which para Nos. 2 and 3 are relevant, which are extracted hereunder:-

(3.) 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 institution of the proceedings, which power is not exercised without any valid reasons that when similarly placed person was convicted and whose conviction was confirmed by the appellate court and pending revision before this Court in Crl.R.C. No. 588 of 1996, the assessee has filed similar petition for compounding the offence, which was entertained by the appellants after obtaining leave by filing Crl.M.P. No. 984 of 2000 in Crl.R.C. No. 588 of 1996, while so, refusing the same relief to the respondent, where the trial court alone convicted her and the appeal is pending, is discriminatory.