Wp/9365/2013 Of Sri K. V. Rayudu v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIAnd THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.9365 OF 2013 Dated: 08.04.2013 Between: K.V.RayuduAnd .. Petitioner Chief Commissioner of Income TaxHyderbad – I,and two others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINIAndTHE 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 onthe part of the respondent No.1 in considering the petitioner’sapplication dated 10.09.2012 for compounding the offence underSections 276C & 277 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for concealment ofincome for the assessment year 2006-07. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Ascould be seen from the material available on record, the 2[nd]respondent herein issued a show-cause notice dated 12.03.2012calling upon the writ petitioner to show-cause in writing as to why heshould not be prosecuted under Section 276C of the Income-Tax Act,1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). The said show-cause notice was issuedstating that on the allegation that the petitioner had furnishedinaccurate particulars of income which tantamounts to concealment ofincome, the assessing officer had levied the penalty under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act and the penalty so levied was also confirmed by theTribunal. In response to the said show-cause notice, the petitionersubmitted his explanation within the time granted explaining thecircumstances and requesting to drop the proposed prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioner has also filed an application for compoundingthe offence in the prescribed proforma on 10.09.2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the petitioner’s request for compoundingthe offence is yet to be considered by the 1[st] respondent, proceedingshave been initiated in the Court of the Special Judge for EconomicOffences, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad by filingC.C.No.85 of 2012 for prosecution and the Court has been proceedingto frame charges. Hence the present writ petition seeking a declaration that theinaction on the part of the 1[st] respondent in considering the petitioner’sapplication for compounding is arbitrary and illegal. Sri J.V.Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel for the IncomeTax Department, on instructions, submitted that it is a fact that thepetitioner made an application for compounding and that the samewas received in the office of the 1[st] respondent on 13.09.2012. It isalso submitted that in pursuance thereof, the respondents havealready called for the necessary reports. However since a committeehas to be constituted for considering the petitioner’s request forcompounding the offence, it may take another three months time fordisposing of the petitioner’s application. Having regard to the submissions made by the learnedStanding Counsel, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the writpetition with a direction to the 1[st] respondent to consider thepetitioner’s application for compounding the offence, dated 10.09.2012(received in the office of the 1[st] respondent on 13.9.2012) and passappropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously aspossible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date ofreceipt of this order. Till such time, all further proceedings inC.C.No.85 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge forEconomic Offences, City Criminal Courts, Nampally, Hyderabad shallremain 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: 08.04.2013ssp/ivd