JUDGMENT
The first petitioner is a private limited company, having its main object to construct, transfer, sale or disposal of all types of buildings and the 2nd petitioner is its Managing Director. In the course of business, they transacted various conveyances, which included purchase of plots and development of the same as ‘Silver Sand Island’, near Vytilla in Ernakulam. But the project of the petitioners could not be completed as desired, because of objections from the GCDA and other authorities. In the said circumstance, there was no other alternative for the petitioners, but to sell the property to a prospective purchaser.
2. In the course of survey conducted by the 6th respondent, various particulars were collected and proceedings were taken against the petitioners under different provisions of the Income Tax Act. Notice was also issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act on 08.03.2013 in respect of the assessment year 2007-08, referring to the ‘capital gain’ accumulated.
3. In the course of further proceedings, assessment was finalised against the petitioners as per Ext.P7 series, followed by demand notices under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act. Being aggrieved of the assessment, the petitioners moved the third respondent/the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, before whom the appeals are pending. It is in the meanwhile, that the petitioners have been served with Ext.P8 notice under Section 279(1) of the Act, as to why prosecution proceedings shall not be initiated under Section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act. It is stated that the petitioners have submitted a detailed reply. But without any regard to the same, the proceedings were pursued, leading to C.C.915 of 2014 before the Addl. C.J.M Court, Ravipuram and it was only on coming across the summons served upon the petitioners, that they could realise that the proceedings had already been initiated, which according to the petitioners is without considering their objections and hence not correct or sustainable.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that, by virtue of the turn of events and other embarrassing circumstances, the petitioners have decided to seek for permission of the respondents for compounding the offence, as provided under Section 279(2) of the Act. It was accordingly, that Ext.P11 representation was preferred before the first respondent/Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The prayer is to cause the same to be considered within the shortest possible time.
5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents as well.
6. In view of the limited nature of the reliefs sought for, this Court does not find it necessary to deal with the merits of the case. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P11 representation and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, at the earliest, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Further steps by the respondents in connection with prosecution in C.C No. 915 of 2014 of the Addl. C.J.M Court, Ravipuram may be kept in abeyance till such time. The writ petition is disposed of.
The petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.
Comments