3.Offences and prosecution – Compounding of offences – Sections 276B and 279(2) – Failure by assessee to deposit amount deducted as tax at source – Rejection of application for compounding on basis of guidelines by CBDT – Assessee’s failure to deposit amount collected beyond its control – Chief Commissioner should consider objective facts on merits before exercising jurisdiction – order rejecting application for compounding not sustainable

The assessee failed to deposit the amounts deducted as tax from the sums payable under various contracts. A complaint u/s. 276B of the Act, 1961 was filed against the assessee. The assessee sought for compounding of the offence u/s. 279(2) of the Act. The Chief Commissioner rejected the application on the ground that the compounding was not permissible in view of the guidelines issued by the CBDT imposed especially in view of para 8(v) thereof which stated that the offences having a bearing in a case under investigation by any other Central or State agency such as the CBI, were not to be compounded.

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee and held as under:

“i)    The rejection of the assessee’s application was entirely routed on the Chief Commissioner’s understanding of the conditions of ineligibility in para 8(v). The view was based upon an erroneous understanding of law. While exercising jurisdiction, the Chief Commissioner should consider the objective facts before it.

ii)    The assessee’s failure to deposit the amounts collected was beyond its control and was on account of seizure of books of account and documents. But for such seizure, the assessee would quite reasonably be expected to deposit the amount within the time prescribed or at least within the reasonable time. Instead of considering these factors on their merits and examining whether indeed they were true or not, the Chief Commissioner felt compelled by the text of para 8(v). The material on record in the form of a letter by the Superintendent of CBI also showed that a closure report was in fact filed before the competent court.

iii)    Therefore, the refusal to consider and accept the assessee’s application u/s. 279(2) of the Act could not be sustained. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The Chief Commissioner is hereby directed to consider the relevant facts and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within six weeks after granting a fair opportunity to the petitioner.”