ito Vs. Dr. K. Jagadeesan

ito vs Dr. K. Jagadeesan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 11, 2000

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/825120

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/825120
Court: Chennai High Court
Decided On: Feb 11, 2000
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Petition No. 984 of 2000 and Criminal Reference Case No. 588 of 1996 11 February 2000
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Counsels: T. Sivananthan, for the Petitioner In the Madras High Court V. Bakthavatsalu, J. -

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

ito

Advocate T. Sivananthan, <i>for the Petitioner</i>

Respondent

Dr. K. Jagadeesan

Legal References

Reported In: [2001]118TAXMAN499(Mad)

Excerpt

counsels: t. sivananthan, for the petitioner in the madras high court v. bakthavatsalu, j. - orderthe petition is filed by the income tax officer to compound the offence.2. the respondent/accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of rs. 10,000 under section 276cc(1) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the respondent/accused preferred an appeal in c.a. no. 46 of 1996. the appellate court by judgment dated 12-8-1996 confirmed the conviction, but the sentence was reduced to a period of 3 months. however, the appellate court has confirmed the sentence of fine as imposed by the trial court. aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused has preferred this revision. when the revision case came up for final hearing, the complainant - income tax officer has filed this application seeking leave to compound the offence. it is alleged in the petition that the chief commissioner has passed an order that if the petitioner/accused agrees to pay compounding fee of rs. 10,000, the matter can be considered and the respondent has also paid the amount on 3-12-1998. it is further alleged that penalty proceeding initiated under the act was set aside in the appeal and that the tribunal has given a finding in favour of the accused. section 279(2) of the act confers the discretion on the commissioner to compound any offence. it is admitted that the accused has also filed an application for compounding the case. i am satisfied that the order of the chief commissioner in agreeing to compound the case, subject to leave of the court that would be granted by the court, is in accordance with law. as the offence is compounded, the conviction and the sentence imposed on the accused are liable to be set aside.3. in the result, the following order is passed. for the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed, leave to compound the offence is granted.

Full Judgment

ORDER

The petition is filed by the Income Tax Officer to compound the offence.

2. The respondent/accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 under section 276CC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent/accused preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 46 of 1996. The appellate court by judgment dated 12-8-1996 confirmed the conviction, but the sentence was reduced to a period of 3 months. However, the appellate court has confirmed the sentence of fine as imposed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused has preferred this revision. When the revision case came up for final hearing, the complainant - Income Tax Officer has filed this application seeking leave to compound the offence. It is alleged in the petition that the Chief Commissioner has passed an order that if the petitioner/accused agrees to pay compounding fee of Rs. 10,000, the matter can be considered and the respondent has also paid the amount on 3-12-1998. It is further alleged that penalty proceeding initiated under the Act was set aside in the appeal and that the Tribunal has given a finding in favour of the accused. Section 279(2) of the Act confers the discretion on the Commissioner to compound any offence. It is admitted that the accused has also filed an application for compounding the case. I am satisfied that the order of the Chief Commissioner in agreeing to compound the case, subject to leave of the court that would be granted by the court, is in accordance with law. As the offence is compounded, the conviction and the sentence imposed on the accused are liable to be set aside.

3. In the result, the following order is passed. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed, leave to compound the offence is granted.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2000 Same Parties ito vs Dr. K. Jagadeesan Same Subject Direct Taxation

Direct Taxation