K.V. Rayudu V. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Hyderabad \\u2013 I and Two others

WP/9365/2013

AI Insights

The case involves K.V. Rayudu, the petitioner, who filed a writ petition against the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Hyderabad-I and others, challenging the inaction on their part regarding his application for compounding an offence related to concealment of income for the assessment year 2006-07. The petitioner had previously received a show-cause notice and had responded, seeking to drop the proposed prosecution. Despite this, proceedings were initiated in a criminal court, prompting the writ petition. The court found that the Income Tax Department had not yet considered the petitioner's application for compounding the offence, which was received on 13.09.2012, and directed them to do so expeditiously.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 677690 (HC-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income-Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: J V PRASAD
• Keywords: Compounding of Offence; Concealment of income; Penalty; Prosecution; Show cause notice; Application for compounding
• Section: 271(1)(c); 276C; 277

Judgement Text

"THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.9365 OF 2013 Dated: 08.04.2013 Between: K.V.Rayudu .. Petitioner And Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Hyderbad – I, and two others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.9365 OF 2013 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Ms. Justice G.Rohini) 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. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material available on record, the 2nd 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. 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 of the petitioner is that while the petitioner’s request for compounding the offence is yet to be considered by the 1st 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. Hence the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in considering the petitioner’s application for compounding is arbitrary and illegal. 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 1st 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. 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 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s application for compounding the offence, dated 10.09.2012 (received in the office of the 1st 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. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _____________ G.ROHINI, J _______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 08.04.2013 ssp/ivd "