Disposed

Sri K. v. Rayudu, v Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Telangana HC8 Apr 2013WP/9365/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the inaction of the Income Tax Department in considering an application for compounding offences under Sections 276C and 277 regarding concealment of income. The Court directed the respondent to dispose of the compounding application within three months and stayed criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the application for compounding within three months and stay of criminal proceedings under C.C.No.85 of 2012.

Sri K. v. Rayudu, Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI And

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.9365 OF 2013

¶4

Dated: 08.04.2013

¶5

Between: K.V.Rayudu .. Petitioner And Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Hyderbad – I, and two others .. Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.9365 OF 2013

¶8

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini)

¶9

This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the respondent No.1 in considering the petitioner’s application dated 10.09.2012 for compounding the offence under Sections 276C & 277 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income for the assessment year 2006-07.

¶10

We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material available on record, the 2^nd respondent herein issued a show-cause notice dated 12.03.2012 calling upon the writ petitioner to show-cause in writing as to why he should not be prosecuted under Section 276C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). The said show-cause notice was issued stating that on the allegation that the petitioner had furnished inaccurate particulars of income which tantamounts to concealment of income, the assessing officer had levied the penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act and the penalty so levied was also confirmed by the Tribunal.

¶11

In response to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation within the time granted explaining the circumstances and requesting to drop the proposed prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioner has also filed an application for compounding the offence in the prescribed proforma on 10.09.2012. The grievance

¶12

of the petitioner is that while the petitioner’s request for compounding the offence is yet to be considered by the 1^st respondent, proceedings have been initiated in the Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad by filing C.C.No.85 of 2012 for prosecution and the Court has been proceeding to frame charges.

¶13

Hence the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the 1^st respondent in considering the petitioner’s application for compounding is arbitrary and illegal.

¶14

Sri J.V.Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, on instructions, submitted that it is a fact that the petitioner made an application for compounding and that the same was received in the office of the 1^st respondent on 13.09.2012. It is also submitted that in pursuance thereof, the respondents have already called for the necessary reports. However since a committee has to be constituted for considering the petitioner’s request for compounding the offence, it may take another three months time for disposing of the petitioner’s application.

¶15

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the petitioner’s application for compounding the offence, dated 10.09.2012 (received in the office of the 1^st respondent on 13.9.2012) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, all further proceedings in C.C.No.85 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad shall remain stayed.

¶16

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ

¶17

petition shall stand closed.

¶18

_____________ G.ROHINI, J

¶19

_______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 08.04.2013 ssp/ivd

Sri K. v. Rayudu, v Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K. v. Rayudu, v Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Ritambara Jalan W/o Shailesh Kumar Jalan, Vs The State Bank of India

Mohd.Ikramul Quadir, Vs State Bank of India

Adapala Ajay Kumar, Vs The Bank of India

Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore, Vs The Asst. Commissioner

M/s Chebrole Agro Private Ltd., Vs The Asst. Commissioner Customs and Service Tax Range

M/s Mahi Agro Products Private Ltd., Vs The Superintendent of Central Excise