Civil Writ Petition No.2293 of 2011 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2293 of 2011 Date of decision: 7.2.2011 Punjab Rice Mills and another ...Petitioner Versus The Central Board of Direct Taxes and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. K.L.Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Goel, Advocate for the petitioners **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J ( Oral) 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 14.5.2009 passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh rejecting the application of the petitioners for compounding of offence for which petitioners have been convicted under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) against which their appeal is pending in the Appellate Court. Further direction is sought for compounding. 2. Case set out in the petition is that declared income of the assessee for the assessment year 1983-84, was not accepted and for alleged wilful concealment of income prosecution was initiated against the petitioners. The trial Court after appreciating evidence, convicted the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for Civil Writ Petition No.2293 of 2011 -2- **** compounding of offence under Section 279(2) of the Act to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Chandigarh. The application was rejected in view of its earlier order as also in view of conviction. According to the petitioners, since offence can be compounded any time even after conviction, declining of prayer for compounding is against the law. 3. We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners. 4. Section 279(2) of the Act enables compounding of offences by the Chief Commissioner. Mere fact that there is provision for compounding of offence is not a ground for issue mandamus to compound the offence. It is not the case of the petitioners that the impugned order is malafide or perverse. Discretionary powers of a statutory authority can be interfered with only on the ground of factual or legal malafides or perversity. Admittedly the petitioners stand convicted. Even though after conviction also, power can be exercised to compound the offence, but this by itself cannot be a ground for issue of mandamus sought in the petition. Neither any legal right of the petitioner is shown to have been infringed nor it is shown that the concerned authority has acted illegally. 4. The petition is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge February 07, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge