COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. M/S INTEROCEAN SHIPPING INDIA P. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/529/2016HC DelhiDLHC01174486201614 September 2016Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner's prayer was liable to be acceded to, noting past precedents. The Court observed that the petitioner was being discriminated against. Accordingly, the Court directed that the petitioner's application seeking compounding of his offence would be considered in accordance with law upon the petitioner moving an appropriate application before the competent authority. The Court did not leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kundan Lal Abichandani, aged 80 years, filed a writ petition challenging the repeated rejection of his application for compounding of an offence. He was convicted under Section 276-C(1) of the Income Tax Act. His initial application for compounding was rejected on January 6, 2014, and a subsequent review petition was also dismissed. The petitioner contended that he was being discriminated against, as similar applications from other individuals had been considered and accepted by the Income Tax Department. He relied on a coordinate bench judgment in W.P.(Crl) 372/2015, where a similar prayer was granted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is being discriminated against by the Income Tax Department in the consideration of his application for compounding of an offence under Section 276-C(1) of the Income Tax Act, despite past precedents where similar applications were allowed? (Mixed question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that his application for compounding was being rejected repeatedly, while similar applications from others were being accepted, indicating discrimination. He relied on the judgment in W.P.(Crl) 372/2015 as a precedent for granting such relief. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent Income Tax Department.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 276-C(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 529/2016

KUNDAN LAL ABHICHANDANI ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr Amardeep Singh, Adv

versus

INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ..... Respondent Through: Mr Rahul Chaudhary and Mr Sanjay Kumar, SC

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

O R D E R %

26.02.2018

The prayer made in the present petition is being perused. The petitioner No. 1 is stated to be 80 years of age. His submission is that he is being discriminated upon and although similar applications seeking compounding of other persons have been considered by the Department, his application is being rejected time and again. He has placed reliance upon judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court delivered in W.P.(Crl) 372/2015 (annexure A) dated 24.02.2015 wherein a similar prayer had been granted. Record shows that the petitioner had been convicted under Section 276-C(1) of the Income Tax Act. After his conviction he had moved an application seeking compounding of his offence which had been rejected on 06.01.2014.

Review petition had also been dismissed.

Noting past precedents, this court is of the view that the prayer made in the petition is liable to be acceded to. Accordingly, the application of the petitioner seeking compounding of his offence will be considered in accordance with law on the petitioner moving an appropriate application before the competent authority.

Writ petition disposed of in the above terms.

Dasti.

INDERMEET KAUR, J FEBRUARY 26, 2018 SU

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →