Rameshwar Singh Lilly v. Chairman, Central Board Of Direct Taxes (Income Tax) New

Civil Writ Petition No.8945 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8945 of 2010Date of decision: 3.2.2011 Rameshwar Singh Lilly ...Petitioner Versus Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes (Income Tax) New Delhi and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. R.K.Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vivek Sethi, Senior Standing Counsel for respondent no.2. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J (Oral) 1.This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No.8945 and8957 of 2010 as it is stated that issue involved in both petitions iscommon. 2.The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions ofIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as “the Act”). He filed hisreturn beyond the statutory period on account of which complaintshave been filed under Section 276CC of the Act before theconcerned Court in which petitioner was summoned to face trial.The petitioner sought compounding which was not allowed. Case ofthe petitioner is that as per circular dated 16.5.2008 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes with the subject “Revised Guidelinesfor compounding of offences” his case was covered forcompounding. The petitioner made an application for the purposebut the Central Board of Direct Taxes rejected the same only on theground that there was chance for conviction. The petitioner appliedfor review vide letter dated 19.2.2010 which has also been rejectedvide order dated 22.3.2010-Annexure P-8. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4.In response to the notice issued to the ChiefCommissioner of Income-Tax, Ludhiana, Mr. Vivek Sethi, learnedSenior Standing Counsel has put in appearance and obtainedinstructions. He has been confronted with the above circular of theCentral Board of Direct Taxes and the fact that in the impugnedorder there is nothing to show that guidelines issued by the CentralBoard of Direct Taxes have been considered. He has not been ableto justify non consideration of the said circular. 5.In view of above, we set aside the impugned order dated22.3.2010 and direct the Central Board of Direct Taxes to take afresh decision in the matter in accordance with law within threemonths from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6.The petitions are disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge Civil Writ Petition No.8945 of 2010 **** -3-