Petitioner, a director of the company, failed to deposit TDS of a certain amount for the financial year 2009-10 within the stipulated time and deposited the same after a few months\u2019 delay, which resulted in criminal prosecution against him. He filed an application for compounding of offence under section 279(2), and the same was accepted, and compounding charges at a rate of 3 per cent were levied upon him. However, subsequently, he was asked to pay compounding charges at a rate of 5 per cent on the ground that the petitioner had applied for compounding for the second time and the petitioner had furnished wrong information in the application regarding the previous compounding. Petitioner contended that, as per guidelines issued by CBDT in the year 2014, since he had applied for compounding of the first offence but no such offence had been compounded earlier, compounding charges at the rate of 5 per cent could not have been levied upon him. On writ the Court held that \u00a05 per cent was only chargeable when earlier offence had been compounded, and conditions stipulated in said order were complied with. \u00a0Since, in the instant case, the first application of the petitioner for compounding was rejected, there was no question of a compounding order being passed or any payments thereof. Thus, 3 per cent compounding charges were leviable upon the petitioner and not 5 per cent. Referred Maspar Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax [2023] 333 CTR 10 (Delhi) (HC) \u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 279: Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner-Commissioner-First offence-3 per cent compounding charges were leviable upon the petitioner and not 5 per cent. [S.279(2), Art. 226]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-60660","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-fMo","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60660","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=60660"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60660\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60661,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60660\/revisions\/60661"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60660"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60660"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60660"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}