GUIDE TO OFFENCES AND

PROSECUTION UNDER THE

INCOME TAX ACT 1961.
Shri Ajay R. Singh
Advocate
 Offences Under Income-tax Act, 1961
Contained in Chapter XXII
S. Section of Brief Description of Punishme Cognizable/ Bailable/ or Summons Triable by
No the I.T. Act offence nt or Non- Non-Bailable Case/Warran
Rigorous Cognizable ts case
imprison
1. 275A Remove, parting with or Upto 2 Non- Bailable Summons Special
w.e.f otherwise dealing with years with Cognizable Case Court/
12-3-1965 books of accounts, fine Magistrate
documents, money, of first class
bullion, jewellery or
other valuable article or
thing put under restraint
during the search. Sec
132(1) or (3), second
proviso
2. 275B Failure to afford Upto 2 Non- Bailable Summons Special
w.e.f. necessary facility to the years with Cognizable Case Court/
1-6-02 Authorised Officer for fine Magistrate
inspection of books or of first class
other documents as
required u/s 132(1)(iib)
3. 276 Fraudulently removal, Upto 2 Non- Bailable Summons Special
w.e.f concealment, transfer years with Cognizable Case Court/
1/4/1989 or delivery of property fine Magistrate
or any interest in the of first class
property with
intention to thwart tax
recovery u/s. 222
4. 276A Failure on the part of a 6 months Non- Bailable Summons Special
w.e.f liquidator or receiver to 2 years Cognizable Case Court/
1/4/1965 of a company to give Magistrate
notice of his of first class
appointment to the
A.O, or parting away of
company’s properties
in contravention of
income-tax provision.
5. 276AB Failure to comply with 6 months Non- Bailable Summons Special
Effective till 30- the provision of to 2 years Cognizable Case Court/
6-2002 Section 269UC. 269UE and fine Magistrate
& 269UL relating to of first class
acquisition of
immovable property.
6. 276B Failure to pay to the credit of 3 months to 7 Non- Bailable Warrant Special
the Central Government the years with fine Cogniza Case Court/
tax deducted at source under ble Magistrate
chapter XVII or contravention Sec.279 of first class
of section 115-O A
7. 276BB Failure to pay the tax 3 months to 7 Cogniza Non-Bailable Warrant Special
collected under the years with fine ble Case Court/
provisions of Sec. 206C Magistrate
of first class
8. 276C(1) Wilful attempt in any manner Special
to evade any tax, penalty or Court/
interest imposable or under Magistrate
report his income under the of first class
Act
a) Where tax evaded a) 6 months to Non- a) Non- a) Warrant
exceeds Rs. 1,00,000/- 7 years with Cogniza Bailable Case
(Rs. 25 lakh w.e.f. 1-7- fine ble
2012) b) 3 months (sec a) Bailable a) Summo
a) In other cases to 3 yrs 279A) ns Case
with fine
(2 years
w.e.f. 1-7-
2012)
9. 276C(2) Wilful attempt in any manner 3 months to 3 Non- Bailable Summons Special
to evade payment of tax, years with fine Cogniza Case Court/
penalty or interest. (2 years w.e.f. ble Magistrate
1-7-2012) of first class
10. 276CC Wilful failure to file return of Special
income u/s 139(1), or in Non- Court/
response to notice u/s 142(1) Cogniza Magistrate
or 148 or 153A ble of first class
a) Where tax evaded 6 months to 7 a) Non- a) Warrant
exceeds Rs. 1,00,000/- years with fine Bailable Case
(Rs. 25 lakh w.e.f. 1-7-
2012)
a) In other cases 3 months to 3 a) Bailable a) Summo
Note: No prosecution if RI is years with fine ns Case
filed before the expiry of the .(2 years w.e.f.
asst. year or if the tax payable 1-7-2012)
on regular asst. as reduced by
TDS & advance tax does not
exceed Rs. 3,000/-
11. 276CCC Failure to furnish return of 3 months to 3 Non- Bailable Warrant Special
w.e.f income in search cases as years with fine Cogniza Case Court/
1-1- required section 158BC . ble Magistrate
1997 of first class
12. 276D Wilful failure to produce Upto 1 years Non- Bailable Summons Special
accounts and documents u/s and fine Cogniza Case Court/
142(1) or to get accounts ble Magistrate
audited u/s 142(2A) . of first class

13. 277 Making a false statement in Special

verification or delivering a Court/
false account or statement Magistrate
and which the concerned of first class
person knows or believes to
be false or does not believe 6 months to 7
to be true. years with fine Non-
a) Where tax sought to be 3 months to 3 Cogniza a) Non- a) Warrant
evaded exceeds Rs. years with fine ble Bailable Case
25,00,000/- . b) Summo
b) In other cases (2 years w.e.f. a) Bailable ns Case
1-7-2012)

14. 277A Falsification of books of 3 months to 3 Non- Bailable Summons Special

accounts or documents, etc. years with fine Cogniza Case Court/
(2 years w.e.f. ble Magistrate
1-7-2012) of first class
15. 278 Abetment or inducing Special
another person to make and 6 months to 7 Non- Court/
deliver an account or years with fine Cogniza Magistrate
statement or declaration 3 months to 3 ble of first class
relating to any taxable yrs with fine (2
income which is false and years w.e.f.
which he either knows or 1-7-2012)
believes to be false.
a) Where tax, penalty or a) Non- a) Warrant
interest sought to be Bailable Case
evaded exceeds Rs.
25,00,000/- a) Summo
b) In other cases a) Bailable ns Case
16. 278A Second and subsequent 6 months to 7 Special
offences u/s 276B, 276C(1), years with fine Court/
276CC, 277 or 278 Magistrate
of first class
17. 280(1) Disclosure of particulars by 6 months with Non Bailable Special
public servants in fine cogniza Court/
contravention of section ble Magistrate
138(2). of first class
( Prosecution to be instituted
with the previous approval of
central government)

Prosecution under IT Act

–Shri Ajay Singh
• Notes :
• As per the provisions of section 279A, the offences punishable u/s 276B,
276C, 276CC, 277, or 278 are deemed to be non-cognizable offence.

• If penalty imposed u/s 270A or 271(1)(iii) has been reduced or waived

u/s. 273A; no offence u/s 276C or 277[ sec. 279(1A)]

• No person is punishable for any failure under section 276A, 276AB or 276B
if he proves that there was reasonable cause for such failure (vide section
278AA).

(a) Prosecution for offences under section 275A, section 275B, section 276,
section 276A, section 276B, section 276BB, section 276C, section 276CC,
section 276D, section 277, section 277Aand section 278 to be instituted
with previous sanction of Principal Director General/Principal Chief
Commissioner/Principal Commissioner/Director General/Chief
Commissioner/Commissioner, except where prosecution is at the instance
of the Commissioner (Appeals) or the appropriate authority (vide section
279).

(b) The offences under Chapter XXII can be compounded (either before or
after the institution of proceedings) by Principal Director General/Director
General or Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner.
 Code of Criminal Procedure First Schedule
II-CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCES AGAINST – OTHER LAWS.
S. Offence Cognizable/ or Non- Cognizable Bailable/ or By what court
No Non-Bailable triable
1. If punishable with Cognizable Non- Bailable Court of Session.
death,
imprisonment for
life, or
imprisonment for
mote than 7 yeas
2. If punishable with Ditto Ditto Magistrate of the
imprisonment for first class.
3 years, and
upwards but not
more than 7 years
3. If punishable with Non-Cognizable Bailable Any Magistrate.
imprisonment for
less than 3 years
or with fine only.
DEFINITIONS.
Section 2 of CrPC
(a)“ bailable offence” means an offence which is shown as bailable in the First
Schedule, or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in
force: and “non-bailable offence” means any other offence.
In case of bailable offence, the grant of bail is a matter of right.
A non-bailable offence is one in which the grant of Bail is not a matter of right.
Here the Accused will have to apply to the court, and it will be the discretion
of the court to grant Bail or not.
(b) “charge” includes any head of charge when the charge contains more heads
than one:

(c) “cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “cognizable case” means
a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or
under and other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant.

(d) “complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate,

with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether
known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police
report.
Explanation. A report made by a police officer in a case, which discloses, after
investigation, the commission of a non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to
be a complaints and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be
deemed to be the complainant;
DEFINITIONS contd...
Section 2 of CrPC
(g) “inquiry” means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by
a Magistrate or court;

(h) “investigation” includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection
of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a
Magistrate) who is authorized by a Magistrate in this behalf,

(i) “judicial proceeding” includes any proceeding in the course of which evidence is
or may be legally taken on oath;

(l) “non-cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “non-cognizable

case” means a case in which, a police officer has no authority to arrest without
warrant;

(n) “offence” means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time
being in force and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be
made under section 20 of the Cattletrespass Act, 1871 (1 of 1871);
DEFINITIONS contd...
Section 2 of CrPC
(o) “officer in charge of a police station” includes, when the officer in charge of the
police station is absent from the station-house or unable from illness or other
cause to perform his duties, the police officer present at the station-house who
is next in rank to such officer and is above the rank of constable or, when, the
State Government so directs, any other police officer so present;

(r) “police report” means a report forwarded by a police officer to a magistrate

under sub-section (2) of section 173;

(s) “Police report” means any post or place declared generally or specially by the
state government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by
the state government in this behalf;

(w) “summons-case” means relating to an offence, and not being a warrant-case;

(x) “warrant-case” means a case relating to an offence punishable with death,

imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years;
1.Introduction.
The word ‘ offence’ has not been defined under the Act. Wilful attempt to
evade tax is an offence . The word ‘ offence’ has to be understood in the
context of an offence generally under the Act.
The Income Tax Act, 1922 provided for the prosecution of taxpayers who were
guilty of the offences mentioned in section 51 and section 52 of the Act.
Under the Income-tax Act, 1961 there are various provisions for compliance
with taxing provisions and the collection of taxes. The Income-tax Act seeks to
enforce tax compliance in a three fold manner; namely :-
1. Imposition of interests.
2. Imposition of penalties and,
3. Prosecutions
The genesis for the need of stringent imposition of prosecutions find its roots
in the Wanchoo Committee Report. The said Committee in their final report
recommended as under:-

“Need for vigorous prosecution policy:

 Introduction contd.
Law Commission 47th Report dt 28/2/1972 :
A few instances stated in the report are as follows:-
(a) CBDT did not utilise the prosecution mechanism for ensuring compliance
u/s. 276CC of the Act,
(b) there were inadequate measure to monitoring the cases,
(c) compounding of offences was not used as an alternative mechanism
effectively to reduce litigation and realise the due revenue
(d) prosecution mechanism was not working effectively and efficiently,
(e) Central economic intelligence bureau established for gathering, collation
and dissemination of information among the tax gathering agencies like
CBDT, CBEC etc. had not worked in the manner as intended to arrest tax
evasion by prosecution etc.;
(f) Pending of cases as on March, 2012 was 2,603 cases of which 1,530 are
more than 15 years old etc.
Introduction contd.
i. assessees in general may not be worried by levy of interest or
penalties which they can afford to pay, the idea of undergoing
imprisonment if convicted of offences can be a strong deterrent
from brazen tax evasion and non-compliance.

ii. Recently it has been observed that a slew of show cause notices
for launching of prosecution have been issued to a large number of
assessees,

iii. (a) to file an appropriate replies, (b) to make an application for

waiver of penalties, (c) approach for Settlement Commission, (d)
Compounding of Offences, (e) proceedings before the Magistrate
Court or (f) approach the Central Govt. for immunity and to
effectively attempt to quash wrongful prosecutions that may have
been initiated.
2.Offences and prosecutions under
Income tax Act, 1961
.
The sections dealing with offences and prosecution proceedings are included
in Chapter XXII of the Income tax Act, 1961 i.e. S. 275A to S. 280D of the Act
(hereinafter referred as “ said Act”).

However, the provisions contained in said Chapter XXII of the Act do not inter
se deal with the procedures regulating the prosecution itself, which is
governed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The
provisions of the said Code are to be followed relating to all offences under
the Income-tax Act, unless the contrary is specially provided for by the Act.

The Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 1-7-2012 has inserted S. 280A to 280D, wherein
the Central Government has been given the power to constitute Special Courts
in consultation with the Chief Justices of the respective jurisdictional High
Courts.
Offences and prosecutions under
Income tax Act, 1961 contd....
Normally, the Magistrate Court in whose territorial jurisdiction an offence is
committed tries the offence. For direct tax cases, the offence is said to
committed at the place where a false return of income is submitted, even
though it is completely possible that the return has be prepared elsewhere or
that accounts have been fabricated at some other place.

In J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO (1987) 168 ITR 467 (Delhi) (HC), the Court held
that the offence u/s. 277 of the Act can be tried only at the place statement is
delivered (SLP was rejected (1988) 173 ITR 98 (st). also refer Babita Lila v. UOI
(2016) 387 ITR 305 (SC). A First Class Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate,
should try the prosecution case under the direct taxes. If a Special Economic
Offences Court with specified jurisdiction is notified, the complaint is to be
filed before the respective court. For ready reference an easy to understand
summary of prosecutions provisions under Income–tax Act has been
reproduced in a chart as per annexure “A”.
3. S. 278E : Presumption as to culpable
mental state
The concept of mens rea is integral to criminal jurisprudence. An offence
cannot be committed unintentionally. Generally a guilty mind is a sine qua non
for an offence to be committed. The rule in general criminal jurisprudence
established over the years has evolved into the concept of ‘Innocent until
proven guilty’ which effectively places the burden of proving the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt squarely on the prosecution.

However, The Taxation Laws (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,

1986, inserted S. 278E with effect from 10th September, 1986 has carved out
an exception to this rule. The said Section places the burden of proving the
absence of mens rea upon the accused and also provides that such absence
needs to be proved not only to the basic threshold of ‘preponderance of
probability’ but ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. The scope and effect of this
provision has been explained by the Board in Circular No. 469 dt. 23-9-1986
(1986) 162 ITR 21(St) (39).
S. 278E : Presumption as to culpable
mental state contd...
Section 278E of the Act, which is analogous to S. 138A of the Customs,
Act, 1962, S.92C of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, S.98B of the
Gold (Control) Act, 1968 and S.59 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation
Act, 1973. Similar provision was introduced under Wealth-tax Act,
1957, i.e. S. 35-0 and Gift–tax Act, S.35D.

Constitutional validity of the said provision was upheld in Selvi J.

Jayalalitha v. UOI and Ors. (2007) 288 ITR 225 (Mad) (HC), Selvi J.
Jayalalithav. ACIT (2007) 290 ITR 55 (Mad) (HC) which was affirmed
by Apex court in Sasi Enterprises v. ACIT (2014) 361 ITR 163 (SC).
S. 278E : Presumption as to culpable
mental state contd...
According to this section, wherever mens rea is a necessary ingredient in an
offence under the Act, the Court shall presume its existence. No doubt, this
presumption is a rebuttable one. The Explanation to the section provides for
an inclusive definition of culpable mental state which is broad enough in its
field so as to include intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and belief in or a
reason to believe a fact. The presumption arising under sub-section (1) may be
rebutted by the accused, but the burden that is cast upon the accused to
displace the presumption is very heavy. The accused has to prove absence of
culpable mental state not by mere preponderance of probability.

In Prakash Nath Khanna v. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 1 (SC) (12), the Court observed
that the Court has to presume the existence of culpable mental state, and the
absence of such mental state can be pleaded by an accused as a defence in
respect of the Act charged as an offence in the prosecution. It is therefore
open to the appellants to plead absence of a culpable mental state when the
matter is taken up for trial.
S. 278E : Presumption as to culpable
mental state contd...
In J. Tewari v. UOI (1997) 225 ITR 858 (Cal.) (HC) (861) the court observed that
the rule of evidence regarding presumptions of culpability on the part of the
accused does not differentiate between a natural person and a juristic person
and the court will presume the existence of culpable state of mind unless the
accused proves contrary.

In ACIT v. Nilofar Currimbhoy (2013) 219 Taxman 102 (Mag.) (Delhi) (HC),
prosecution was launched u/s. 276CC for a failure to file the return of income,
the court held that the onus was on the assessee to prove that delay was not
wilful and not on the department (SLP of assessee is admitted in the case of
Nilofar Currimbhoy v. ACIT (2015) 228 Taxman 57 (SC).

S. 278E being penal in nature is not applicable for those offences that have
been committed on or before 9-9-1986 even if the prosecution proceedings
are launched after the said date.
S. 278E : Presumption as to culpable
mental state contd...
Before the amendment to S. 276A, 276B, 276B, 276D and 276E, the
onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the accused had no reasonable cause or excuse to commit any of the
offences as envisaged by the aforesaid sections. However, in the light of
the amendment by the Taxation Laws (Amendment and Misc.
Provisions) Act, 1986 to the aforesaid, sections wherein the word
“without reasonable cause or excuse” have been deleted and with the
insertion of S. 278AA, the onus of proving the existence of reasonable
cause has shifted on to the accused. However reasonable cause can be
proved in cases related to offence 276A , 276AB or 276B (see 278AA) .
S. 278E : Presumption as to culpable
mental state contd...
Instances of Reasonable cause accepted by courts:
In UOI v. Bhavecha Machinery & Ors. (2009) 320 ITR 263 (MP)(HC),
Where the delay in filing the return was explained by the accused firm due to
the illness of the old part time accountant of the accused firm, the cause
shown by the accused firm was held to be a reasonable cause for delay in filing
the return of its income.

Sonali Autos P. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (2017) 396 ITR 636 (Patna) (HC)
S. 278AA : Offences and prosecutions – Tax deduction at source - Reasonable
cause – No punishment. [S. 201 (IA), 276A, 276AB, 276B, 279, Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, S.482]

In Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (TDS) (No. 2) (2003) 264 ITR 243 (Cal.)(HC)
held that it is for appellant to produce sufficient evidence for non-deposit of
tax deducted at source during criminal trial to avail of benefit of section
278AA.
4.Procedure governing prosecution
proceedings :
The procedure governing prosecution proceedings under the Act can be
divided into two parts i.e.
I. Procedure to be followed by the Department while launching prosecution
proceedings, and
II. The procedure before the Court.
I. Procedure followed by the department while lunching the prosecution
Though there is no specific procedure provided under the Act or Rules, the
Department has framed their own guidelines and instructions for initiating
prosecution proceedings. The said instructions are referred in the following
cases while quashing the prosecutions under S. 271C(1) read with Ss. 277 and
276CC of the Act.

Madan Lal v. ITO (1998) 98 Taxman 395 (Raj.) (HC), PatnaGuinea House v. CIT
(2000) 243 ITR 274 (Pat.) (HC), Satya Narain Dalmia v. State of Bihar (2000)
110 Taxman 28 (Pat.) (HC), K. Inba Sagaran v. ACIT (2000) 247 ITR 528 (Mad.)
(HC).
Procedure governing prosecution proceedings
contd...
The Income-tax department’s manual deals with various guidelines to be
followed before launching prosecution proceedings and the broad parameters
as laid down are as follows:

1. The Assessing Officer on the basis of the records of the assessee sends the
proposal to the respective Commissioner.

2. The Commissioner issues the show cause notice to the assessees.

3. If Commissioner is satisfied with the reply of the assessee he may not grant
sanction to the Assessing Officer to file complaint before the Court. The
commissioner has to apply his mind to the reply and material produce before
him.
Procedure governing prosecution proceedings
contd...
II. Procedure before Court [see Trial Chart]
On the basis of complaint filed before a court, the court sends summons to
the accused along with the copy of complaint, to attend before the court on a
particular date. The complaint being criminal complaint, the accused must be
present before the court, unless the court gives a specific exemption.
If the accused is not present on such particular date, the court can issue a
warrant against the accused. If the warrant is issued, unless the accused
secures bail, he may be arrested and produced before the court.
In normal Course Complainant and his witnesses are required to be examined
on oath by the Magistrate before the accused can be summoned u/s 200 of
Cr.Pc
But as the Complainant in the cases under Income Tax Act are “Public
Servants” the Magistrate need not examine him on oath before summoning
the accused. If the opinion of the magistrate there is sufficient ground for
proceeding:
Procedure governing prosecution proceedings
contd...
If it is a “Summons Cases” – Issue summons
If it is a “Warrant Cases” – Issue summons or Warrants
Cases instituted otherwise than on police report.
Relevant sections 244 to 250 of Cr.P.C.
Steps :
Case is instituted u/s 190
Summons is issued u/s 204
Summons can be challenged in revision before the sessions court/under
criminal application u/s 482 of CR.P.C. accused appears and file for bail
The accused can file discharge application u/s. 245.
Arguments on discharge application. if discharged the matter is over, if not
discharged,
The prosecution will lead evidence of the complainant.
The evidence is recorded by the magistrate.
Opportunity is granted to the accused to cross examine the complainant or
not to cross examination at this stage also discharge can be filed by the
accused u/s. 245 of CR.P.C.
Procedure governing prosecution proceedings
contd...
Charges are framed. u/s. 246(1).
Again evidence is lead by the prosecution of the complainant and other
witnesses.
Cross examination of the complainant and the other witnesses by the accused
advocate. (u/s 246(4) Cr.P.C.
Accused statement is recorded u/s. 313.
Opportunity is given to the accused to examine any witnesses, defence
witness (u/s. 247, provisions of section 243 if applied here).
The accused enters his defence and produces his evidence, can file written
statement too which is taken on record.
Accused can call for his defence witnesses too or for examination or cross
examination of witnesses. Arguments by both the parties.
Judgement.

If the trial results in a conviction, then an appeal to the court of session will lie
under S. 374(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The said appeal will be heard
under S.381 of the CrPC, either by the a Sessions Judge or by an Additional
Sessions Judge. The petition of appeal is to be presented in the form
prescribed accompanied by a copy of the Judgment appealed against within a
period of 30 days from the date of order, as per the Limitation Act.
 5. Certain aspects to be kept in mind relating to
launching of prosecution, proceedings are:

5.1 Sanction for launching of prosecutions

Under S. 279, the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution
is Commissioner, Commissioner (Appeals), Chief Commissioner or the
Director General. Prosecution, without a requisite sanction shall make
the entire proceedings void ab initio. The sanction must be in respect of
each of the offences in respect of which the accused is to be prosecuted.
Where the Commissioner has held that an assessee had made a return
containing false entries and gave sanction for prosecution for an offence
under S. 277, and the accused was found guilty of an offence under S.
276CC, and not under S. 277, it was held in revision that an offence under
S. 276CC was of a different nature from that under S. 277, and as there
was no sanction for prosecution for an offence under S. 276CC, the
conviction was illegal (Champalal Girdharlal v. Emperior (1933) 1 ITR 384
(Nag) (HC))
 Certain aspects to be kept in mind relating to
launching of prosecution, proceedings are contd...

5.2 Opportunity of being heard

When an Assessing Officer takes a decision to initiate proceedings or a
Commissioner grants sanction for such proceedings. He has to apply his
mind and on the basis of the circumstances and the facts on record, he
has to come to the conclusion whether prosecution is necessary and
advisable in a particulars case or not.
The said Act does not provide that the Commissioner has to necessarily
afford the assessee an opportunity to be heard before deciding to initiate
proceedings. The absence of an opportunity to be heard will not make
the order of sanction void or illegal as held in CIT v. Velliappa Textiles Ltd.
(2003) 263 ITR 550 (SC) (567 to 569). However, it is being observed that
the commissioners are issuing a show cause notice before sanctioning
the Sanction for prosecution based on the internal manual.
 Certain aspects to be kept in mind relating to
launching of prosecution, proceedings are contd...
5.3 Circumstances under which the Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings
S. 279(1A) has provided for the exception to the Power of Commissioner to
initiate proceedings. Therefore, if a particular case falls and is established u/s.
276C or 277 of the said Act and if an order u/s. 273A has been passed by the
Commissioner, by using the phrase “has been reduced or waived by an order
under S. 273A” in S. 279(1A),the legislature has made it clear that the order
referred to in S. 279(1A) is the order of the Commissioner waiving or reducing
the penalty u/s. 273A and not the order of non imposition of penalty by the ITO
or the order of cancellation of penalty for lack of ingredients as required by S.
271 by Appellate Authorities. This is relevant because in the cases where the
penalty is waived partly u/s. 273A, the Commissioner is precluded from granting
sanction u/s. 279 of the Act.

Therefore, the non-existence of the circumstances enumerated in S. 273A is a

precondition for the initiation of proceedings for prosecution u/s. 276C or 277.
Accordingly, the CIT should ascertain by himself that the circumstances
prescribed in section 273A do not exist. A complaint filed for prosecution u/s.
276C or 277 would be illegal and invalid if the circumstances as provided in S.
273A exist.
 Certain aspects to be kept in mind relating to
launching of prosecution, proceedings are contd...

FEW CASE LAWS:

In Shravan Gupta v. ACIT (2015) 378 ITR 95 (Delhi)(HC) held that failure
to produce accounts or documents-Accounts had been submitted when
criminal complaint was issued-Sanction for prosecution was held to be
not valid [S. 279, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 482.]

T.D. Gandhi, ITO v. Sudesh Sharma (2015) 230 Taxman 572 (P&H)(HC)
held that Falsification of books –False TDS certificate-Tax practitioner-
Refund on the basis of TDS certificates- Respondent had no role in
preparing TDS certificates- [IPC, S. 378 (4), 418, 465, 471]
 6. Old age 70 Years
CBDT instruction No. 5051 of 1991 dated 07/02/1991 para 4 states “Prosecution
need not normally be initiated against a person who has attained the age of 70
years at the time of commission of the offence”.

In Pradip Burman S. v. ITO 382 ITR 418 (Delhi) the Court laid down that the
person should have reached the age of 70 at the time of commission of the
offence. The case of the petitioner was that the complaint filed is liable to be
quashed on the ground that at the time of filing of the criminal complaint, the
petitioner had attained the age of 70 years and thus no prosecution can be
initiated against him. Instruction number 5051 of 1991 dated February 7 1991
mandated that no prosecution could be initiated against a person who is above
70 years, “at the time of commission of offence”.

Further the said instructions do not mandate or make it compulsory since the
words “need not normally” used in para 4 do not provide an absolute bar on
initiation of prosecution. Thus the emphasis is on time of commission of the
offence.
 7. Whether prosecution can be initiated before
completion of assessment or when the matter is
pending in appeal
The assessment proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent
proceedings.
In P. Jayappan v. ITO (1984) 149 ITR 696 (SC), the court held that the two
types of proceedings could run simultaneously and that one need not
wait for the other. the court held that, there is no bar on continuation of
prosecution just because a proceeding which may ultimately affect the
prosecution or is likely to favour the assessee has been initiated or is
pending. This can’t be a ground for stay or adjournment of prosecution
proceeding

In Kalluri Krishan Pushkar v Dy. CIT(2016) 236 Taxman 27 (AP& T) (HC),

the court held that, existence of other mode of recovery cannot act as a
bar to the initiation of prosecution proceedings. In that particular case
the prosecution was initiated u/s. 276C, for non-payment of admitted tax
and interest.
 Whether prosecution can be initiated before
completion of assessment or when the matter is
pending in appeal contd...
In Vijay Kumar Mallik v. CIT (2017) 397 ITR 130 (Patna) (HC), Held, dismissing
the writ petition, that it was apparent that the assessee had not been
exonerated by the Income-tax Department in the adjudication proceedings till
date. According to the assessee, the special leave petition filed by him was still
pending in the Supreme Court. In such circumstances, there was no illegality in
the order passed by the criminal court taking cognizance against the assessee
under section 276C (1) and (2) .

In V. Sadasiva Chetty (HUF) v. ITO (2003) 264 ITR 527 (Mad.)(High Court) held
that because of the pendency of reassessment, the prosecution cannot be
whittled down and original assessment alone is to be considered for
prosecution. (A.Y. 1982-83)

In Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. .v. ACIT (2014) 265 CTR 240(Karn.)(HC) held that
Criminal proceedings are not dependent on the recovery proceedings.
Therefore, the pendency of proceedings initiated u/s. 201(1) and s. 201(1A) is
not a legal impediment to continue the criminal prosecution against the
petitioner.
 Whether prosecution can be initiated before
completion of assessment or when the matter is
pending in appeal contd...

In CIT v. Bhupen Champak Lal Dalal & Anr (2001) 167 CTR 283 (SC), the
Supreme court Held:
“ The prosecution in criminal law and proceedings arising under the Act are
undoubtedly independent proceedings and, therefore, there is no impediment in
law for the criminal proceeding to proceed even during the pendency of the
proceedings under the Act.
However, a wholesome rule will have to be adopted in matters of this nature
where courts have taken the view that when the conclusions arrived at by the
appellate authorities have a relevance and bearing upon the conclusions to be
reached in the case necessarily one authority will have to await the outcome of
the other authority”
This judgement has been followed by many High Courts including Delhi High
Court in Income Tax Officer v Giggles(p) Ltd. And Ors.(2007) 301 ITR 32
 Whether prosecution can be initiated before
completion of assessment or when the matter is
pending in appeal contd...
In Naresh Prasad v. UOI (2005) 276 ITR 633 (Patna)(High Court), If appeal is
pending against assessment order, prosecution proceedings should not be
launched.

In Gauri Shankar Prasad v. UOI (2003) 261 ITR 522 (Patna)(High Court) held that
during pendency of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), interim stay of
criminal proceedings is to be granted.

S. 276(C)(1) Prosecution for bogus transaction: If a stay application is filed before

the CIT(A) to seek a stay of the assessment order, during the pendency of such
application, the criminal prosecution should not be launched and, if it has been
already launched, the same shall not proceed . Ramchandran Ananthan Pothi
vs. UOI, W.P NO.761 OF 2018, dtd: 04/09/2018 (Bombay High Court)
 8.Findings of the Appellate Tribunal
The Appellate Tribunal is the final fact finding authority under the Act. Hence,
the findings and the orders of the Appellate Tribunal are binding on the
Commissioner of Income tax. On the aforesaid proposition, the two important
questions that may arise are:
(1) If there is a finding of the Appellate Tribunal that there is no concealment
and no false statement, etc., then whether or not the Commissioner of Income
tax would be stopped from initiating proceedings under S. 277? and

(2) How far are the findings of the Appellate Tribunal in the assessment
proceedings binding upon the trial court in respect of the proceedings for
prosecution u/s. 277?

The Supreme Court, in Uttam Chand v. ITO (1982) 133 ITR 909 (SC),
Prosecution u/s 277 was for filing of false return because the registration of the
firm was cancelled on the ground that it was not genuine The Appellate Tribunal
reversed the finding and held the registration of the firm to be genuine and
consequently the return as valid. The Supreme Court held that once the ITAT had
held that the firm was genuine & returns valid, the prosecution under IT Act
could not contine.
 Findings of the Appellate Tribunal contd...

The P & H Court, in ITO v. Janta Trading Co. (2003) 263 ITR 24(P&H)(High
Court) held that Where no prima facie case was made out that assessee
willfully concealed sale of bags of cement, prosecution of assessee under
section 276C / 277 was unsustainable.

If the penalty for concealment is quashed on technical grounds due to

limitation or due to violation of the due process of law, as the penalty is
not quashed on merits it cannot be said that there should not be any
prosecution. Similarly, when the Appellate Tribunal holds that the
assessee is liable for penalty, the conviction is not automatic. The
concerned court has to examine the witnesses and has to come to an
independent finding as to whether the accused is guilty of the offences
by following the due process of law.
 Addition made in assessment having
been deleted

• In ACIT v. Poorna Cine Theatre(P) Ltd & Ors. 126 Taxation

337(AP) the addition made in assessment having been
deleted by the Tribunal the court held following Supreme
Court’s decision in KTMS Mohammed v. UOI (1992) 197 ITR
196 (SC), that the very basis of prosecution was nullified and
no offence under section 276C and 277 was made out.

•
 Estimated Addition
• In Raghunath Prasad Mohanlal & Ors v. UOI (2003)
259 ITR 663 (MP), it was held following Prem Kumar
Keshri(1998) 230 ITR 230 ITR 252(Pat), that in a case
of addition made on estimate based by AO, which is
reduced in appeal, it is difficult to comprehend any
convection based on such evidences. On the facts no
material was available in the case.
 9.Penalty and prosecution – S. 271(1)(c) and S.
277
Simultaneous action for imposing a penalty and launching prosecution for the
same offence is not barred under the I T Act, 1961.

In S.P. Sales Corporation v. S. R. Sikdar (1993) 113 Taxation 203 (SC) and G. L.
Didwania v. ITO (1995) 224 ITR 687 (SC), the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the
principle that “The Criminal Court no doubt has to give due regard to the result
of any proceedings under the Act having bearing on the question in issue and in
an appropriate case it may drop the proceedings in the light of an order passed
under the Act.”
In K. C. Builder v. ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC), the court held that when the
penalty is cancelled, the prosecution for an offence u/s 276C for wilful evasion of
tax cannot be proceeded with thereafter. (Shashichand Jain & Ors. v UOI (1995)
213 ITR 184 (Bom) (HC).
In Suresh Chand Gupta v. UOI (1997) 223 ITR 183 (MP), it was held, following
smt. Mohini Devi Agarwal v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 742 (Pat) and G.L. Didwania v.
ITO (1997) 224 ITR 687(SC) that in view of cancellation of penalty on the same
point, prosecution under section 276C and section 277 was liable to be quashed.
 Penalty and prosecution – S. 271(1)(c) and S.
277 contd...
Various courts have held that, when the substantial question of law is admitted
by a High Court, it is not a fit case for the levy of penalty for concealment of
Income (CIT v. Nayan Builders and Developers (2014) 368 ITR 722 (Bom.) (HC),
CIT v. Advaita Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1498 of 2014 dt.
17/2/2017) (Bom.)(HC), (www.itatonline.org) CIT v. Dr. Harsha N. Biliangady
(2015) 379 ITR 529 (Karn.) (HC).
A harmonious reading of the various ratios it can be contended that if penalty
cannot be levied upon the admission of a substantial question of law by the
Jurisdictional High Court, it cannot be a fit case for prosecution.

In V. Gopal v. ACIT (2005) 279 ITR 510 (SC), the court held that when the penalty
order was set-aside, the Magistrate should decide the matter accordingly and
quash the prosecution.

In ITO v. Nandlal and Co. (2012) 341 ITR 646 (Bom.) (HC), the court held that,
when the order for levy of penalty is set aside, prosecution for wilful attempt to
evade tax does not survive.
Penalty and prosecution – S. 271(1)(c)
and S. 277 contd...
• In ITO v. Ashoka Biscuit Works 126 Taxation 225(AP), the
court found that the Tribunal had deleted the penalty under
section 271(1)(c) levied on the same facts on holding that ITO
had not brought home any concealment of income and there
was only postmen of the payment of tax and no loss of
revenue. Following Uttam Chand v. ITO (1982) 133 ITR 909
(SC),
 Penalty and prosecution – S. 271(1)(c) and S.
277 contd...
Non-initiation of penalty proceedings does not lead to a presumption that the
prosecution cannot be initiated as held in
Universal Supply Corporation v. State of Rajasthan (1994) 206 ITR 222 (Raj)
(HC) (235), A.Y. Prabhakar (Kartha) HUF v. ACIT (2003) 262 ITR 287 (Mad.) (288).

However, if penalty proceedings are initiated and after considering the reply, the
proceedings are dropped, it will not be a case for initiating prosecution
proceedings. CBDT guidelines had instructed that where quantum additions or
penalty have been deleted by the departmental appellate authorities, then steps
must be taken to withdraw prosecution (Guidelines F. No. 285/16/90-IT (Inv) 43
dated 14-5-1996).

If the penalty is quashed on “ technical grounds such as “ Limitation” or “

Violation of the due process of law” penalty not quashed on merits as such it
does not impact the prosecution proceedings.
 Penalty and prosecution – S. 271(1)(c) and S.
277 contd...
In Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal (2011) 333 ITR 58 (SC)
The following principles were laid down by the Supreme court:
1. Adjudication proceeding and criminal prosecution can be launched
simultaneously.
2.Decision in adjudication proceeding is not necessary before initiating
criminal prosecution.
3.Adjudication proceeding and criminal proceeding are independent in
nature to each other.
4.The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication
proceeding is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution.
5.The finding in the adjudication proceeding in favour of the person
facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding.
If the exoneration in adjudication proceeding is on technical ground and
not on merit, prosecution may continue and
 Penalty and prosecution – S. 271(1)(c) and S.
277 contd...
In case of exoneration, however, on merits where allegation is found to be not
sustainable at all and person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same
set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue underlying
principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.

In term of Circular dated February 7th 1991, if there is evade tax of less than Rs.
25,000/-, no prosecution could be lunched u/s. 276C(1) and 277.

In the case of Magdum Dundappa Lokappa v. Income tax Dept. (rep by its
Income tax Officer, Angad Kumar) / Suresh Sholapurmath v. Income tax Dept
(rep by its Income tax Officer, Angad (Kumar) (2017) 397 ITR 145 (SC)

Supreme Court held:

Allowing the appeals; as the amount involved was small, and had been paid with
interest long ago, the Circular dated February 7, 1991 squarely applied and no
proceedings should have been filed as the amount was below Rs. 25,000.
Proceedings against the appellants were to be quashed.
 10.Monetary Limit
In ITO v. Rajan and Co. And Ors (2007) 291 ITR 345 (Del)(HC)
Question before Delhi High Court was where ITAT had quashed the
penalty leived and confirmed by the lower authorities on the ground that
same was without recording satisfaction as contemplated u/s. 271(1)(c)

Whether a prosecution u/s 276C of the said Act can be allowed to be

continued in such a case holding that the penalty proceeding u/s
271(1)(c) of the said Act were terminated merely on the ground of some
technicality and not on merits ?
High Court said it was not a mere technicality and penalty was quashed
on merits.
 11. Charge in complaint under one section can
it be shifted to another section
The complaint filed is in respect of each of the offence for which the
accused is prosecuted under a specific section. At the time of trial, it is
felt that the accused is guilty under another section charge on which the
complaint was filed. Thus what is sought to introduce is a charge of a
different nature under a different provision and section, in such a case
the entire complaint is bad and the prosecution fails since the accused
cannot be charged under different section which is different in nature
and the offence is specifically different.
It may further be noted that while sanctioning prosecution under section
279 the CIT had applied his mind to the provisions of a particular section
and offence in respect of which the section contemplates prosecution to
change the complaint to a different charge is not permissible. In such a
case the complaint is bad and vitiated in law.
 12. Abetment
S. 278 of the said Act deals with the offence of abetment in the matter of
delivering any accounts or a statement or a declaration relating to income
chargeable to tax. Though abetment has not been defined in the Income-tax Act
the provisions relating to abetment of an offence are dealt with in Chapter V of
the Indian Penal Code. In particular S. 107, 108, 108A and 110 of IPC are
important. On the perusal of S. 107, it is seen that the offence of abetment is
committed in three ways, namely –
(a) by instigation;
(b) by conspiracy; or
(c) by intentional aid.
In order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have
intentionally aided in the commission of a crime. Mere proof that the crime
charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged
abettor is not enough to fulfil the ingredients of the offence as envisaged by
S.107. It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to
facilitate the commission of the crime. Intentional adding and active complicity
is the gist of the offence of abetment. (Shri Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1975
(SC) (Cr. 87), 1975 AIR 175, 1975 SCC (3) 495).
 Abetment contd...
For an offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the offence should
have been committed. A man may be guilty as an abettor, whether the
offence is committed or not. (Faunga Kanata Nath v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 673).

Further, a person can be convicted of abetting an offence, even when the

person alleged to have committed that offence in consequence of
abetment, has been acquitted. (Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967
SC 553, 1967 SCR (1) 469).
In Umayal Ramanathan v. Income Tax Officer (1992) 194 ITR 487 (Mad),
it was held that even if it is decided that the prosecution against an
assessee under section 276C is to be dropped, the prosecution against
the person accused of abetment under section 278 of false return can
continue.

In Smt. Sheela Gupta v. IAC (2002) 253 ITR 551 (Delhi) (HC) (552), the
Court held that, when the Tribunal has set aside the order of the
Assessing Officer, the complaint filed for abetment does not survive
hence the complaint was quashed.
 13. Liability of an advocate or a chartered
accountant for abetment
S. 278 of the said Act, imposes a criminal liability on the abettor for
abetment of false return etc. Circular No. 179 dt. 30/1975 (1975) 102 ITR
9 (St.)(25) explain the provision. Under this section, if a person abets or
induces in any manner, another person to make or deliver an account,
statement, declaration which is false and which he either knows to be
false or does not believe to be true, he shall be punishable with rigorous
imprisonment of not less than three months. The section casts an
onerous duty on the advocates, Chartered Accountants and Income Tax
Practitioners to be cautious and careful. The legal profession is a noble
one and legal practitioners owe not only a duty towards his client but also
towards the court. It would be highly unprofessional if a legal practitioner
is to encourage dishonesty or to file such returns knowing or having
reason to believe that the returns or declarations so made are false.
In P. D. Patel v. Emperor, (1933) 1 ITR 363 (Rangoon) (HC), a warning has
been given of which every legal practitioner has to take a serious notice
 Liability of an advocate or a chartered
accountant for abetment contd...
In Navrathna & Co. v. State (1987) 168 ITR 788 (Mad.)(HC) (790).
The court held that, merely preparing returns and statement on the
basis of the accounts placed before the Chartered Accountant, the
question of abetment or conspiracy cannot arise.
The Supreme Court in the case of Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar,
AIR 1967 SC 553 (Supra),has held that a person can be convicted of
abetting an offence even when the person alleged to have
committed that offence in consequence of abetment has been
acquitted.
In Lalji & Co v. Delhi Administration (1985) 154 ITR 728 (Del), it
was held that mere introduction of certain parties to the assessee
in whose names the assessee has created certain fictitious entries
of loans does not amount to abetment or inducement so as to
invoke provisions section 278. The court held that criminal
complaint must be independent of the assessment order passed by
complaintant.
 14.Offences by companies, etc.
S.278B makes certain provisions with regard to offence committed by
companies, firms, association of person and bodies of individuals, whether
incorporated or not. Where an offence has been committed by a company, a
firm, association of persons, or body of individuals, the person, who was in
charge of and was responsible for the conduct of its business at the time when
the offence was committed will be deemed to be guilty of the offence, unless he
proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had
exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.

Further, if in the case of a company it is proved that the offence bad been
committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on
the part of the company, such director, manager, secretary or others will be
deemed to be guilty of the offence and will be liable to be prosecuted and
punished accordingly. This provision will also apply in relation to mutatis
mutandis committed by a firm, association of persons or body of individuals.
Under sub-section (1) to sec 278B, the essential ingredient for implicating a
person is his being “in charge of” and "responsible to" the company for the
conduct of the business of the company. The term responsible is defined in
Blacks Law dictionary to mean accountable
 Offences by companies, etc. Contd...
In Onkar Chand & Co. & Ors. v. Income-tax Department (2009) 237 CTR 530
(HP) (High Court) held that complaints for offences under sections 276C, 277
and 278B was filed against the firm and all the partners. In absence of any
specific allegation against the partners of the firm other than those who had
verified the return of the firm that they were responsible for the conduct of the
business of the firm, prosecution against these partners was held to be not
sustainable.
In Homi Phiroze Ranina v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 131 Taxman 100 / 263
ITR 636 (Bom.)(High Court) held that Unless complaint disclosed a prima facie
case against applicant-directors of their liability and obligation as principal
officers in the day-to-day affairs of company as directors of the company under
section 278B, the applicants could not be prosecuted for offences committed by
the company.
In Dhrupadi Devi (Smt.) v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 106 Comp. Cas 90 (Raj.)
(HC)(93), the court held that criminal liability of partner cannot be thrust upon
his legal heirs . In ITO v Kamra Trading Co. (2004) 267 ITR 170 (P&H) (HC) the
court held that launching of prosecution against sleeping partner was held to be
bad in law for failure to pay the tax.
 Offences by companies, etc. Contd...
In Onkar Chand & Co. & Ors. v. Income-tax Department (2009) 237 CTR 530
(HP) (High Court) held that complaints for offences under sections 276C, 277
and 278B was filed against the firm and all the partners. In absence of any
specific allegation against the partners of the firm other than those who had
verified the return of the firm that they were responsible for the conduct of the
business of the firm, prosecution against these partners was held to be not
sustainable.
In Homi Phiroze Ranina v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 131 Taxman 100 / 263
ITR 636 (Bom.)(High Court) held that Unless complaint disclosed a prima facie
case against applicant-directors of their liability and obligation as principal
officers in the day-to-day affairs of company as directors of the company under
section 278B, the applicants could not be prosecuted for offences committed by
the company.
In Dhrupadi Devi (Smt.) v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 106 Comp. Cas 90 (Raj.)
(HC)(93), the court held that criminal liability of partner cannot be thrust upon
his legal heirs . In ITO v Kamra Trading Co. (2004) 267 ITR 170 (P&H) (HC) the
court held that launching of prosecution against sleeping partner was held to be
bad in law for failure to pay the tax.
 Offences by companies, etc. Contd...

.
Both the ingredients “in charge of” and "was responsible to" have to be
satisfied as the word used is “and” [Subramanyam vs. ITO (1993) 199 ITR
723 (Mad.)].

In case of Jamshedpur Engg. & Machine Mfg. Co. Ltd.v.Union of India

[1995] 214 ITR 556 (PAT.) it was held that every director or person
associated with the company will not be held liable for the offence. It is
only the person who was entrusted with the business of the company and
was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business who will
be liable for the offence alleged.”
 Offences by companies, etc. Contd...

The Supreme Court in the case of Girdharilal Gupta vs. D. N.

Mehta, AIR 1971 S.C. 2162, has held that since the provision makes
a person who was in charge of and responsible to the company for
the conduct of its business vicariously liable for an offence
committed by the company. The provision should be strictly
construed.
 15.Offences by HUF

S. 278C provides for criminal liability of the Karta, or members of a HUF in

respect of offences committed by the Hindu Undivided Family. Under this
provision, when an offence has been committed by HUF, will be deemed
to be liable to be prosecuted and punished accordingly, unless he proves
that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had
exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence.

If the offence was committed with the consent or connivance of or is

attributable to any neglect on the part of any other member of the
family, such other member shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence
and shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished accordingly. In Roshan
Lal v. Special Chief Magistrate (2010) 322 ITR 353 (All.) (HC), the Court
held that a member of HUF cannot be held liable for delay in filing of
return of HUF though he has participated in the assessment proceedings.
 16. Offences by Credit Institutions

If an offence is committed by a credit institution, then the credit

institution as well as every person, who at the time of the offence being
committed was in-charge and responsible to the credit institution for the
conduct of the business of such institution, shall be deemed to be guilty
and liable to be proceeded against.

Burden would be on such person to prove that the offence was

committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due
diligence to prevent the commission of such offence, then he will not be
liable to be proceeded against.
 17. S. 136: Proceedings before income-tax
authorities to be judicial proceedings
S. 136 provides that any proceedings under the Act shall be deemed to be
a judicial proceeding within the meaning of S. 193 and 228 and for the
purpose of S. 196 of the Indian Penal Code. However, all proceedings
under the Act do not fall under the definition of judicial proceedings for
all purposes. eg. penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) do not fall within the
ambit of S. 136 of the Act and therefore cannot be said to be judicial
proceedings.

In KTMS Mohammed v. UOI (1992) 197 ITR 196 (SC), the Court held that
Assessing Officer cannot launch prosecution for perjury in FERA
proceedings in a statement recorded under FERA proceedings. However,
if an assessee intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence, the said
assessee is liable for prosecution under S. 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
 18. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition)
Amendment Act, 2016

The definition “benami transaction” as per S. 2(9) of the said Act is

very wide, hence if any action is taken against the assessee under
the said Act which is affirmed by the competent Court, the
assessee may also be tried under the Income-tax Act for false
verification in return etc.
 18. Limitation for initiation of proceedings

Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down the period of
limitation beyond which no Court can take cognizance of an offence which is
punishable with fine only or with imprisonment not exceeding three years. But,
for Economic Offences (In respect of applicability of Limitation Act, 1974) it is
provided that nothing in the aforesaid chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, shall apply to any offence punishable under any of the
enactment specified in the Schedule. The Schedule referred to includes Income
tax, Wealth tax, etc.

In Friends Oil Mills & Ors. v. ITO (1977) 106 ITR 571 (Ker.) (HC), dealing with S.277
of the Act, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that the bar of limitation specified
in section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not apply to a
prosecution, under the Income-tax Act (also refer Nirmal Kapur v. CIT (1980) 122
ITR 473 (P&H) (HC). In view of this, as there is no fixed period of limitation for
initiation of proceedings under the Act, the sword of prosecution can be said to
be perpetually hanging on the head of the assessee for the offences said to have
been committed by him.
 Limitation for initiation of proceedings contd...
It may be noted that this may result in injustice to the assessee because a person
who is in a better position to explain the issue or things in the initial stage, may not
be able to do so later, if he is confronted with the act of commission of an offence
under a lapse of time.

In Gajanand v. State (1986) 159 ITR 101 (Pat) (HC)), the Hon’ble High Court held that
where the Criminal Proceedings had proceeded for 12 years and the Income tax
department failed to produce the evidence, the prosecution was to be quashed.

In State of Maharashtra v. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni AIR 1980 SC 593, 1980 SCR (2)
340, the Court held that a long delay along with other circumstances be taken in to
consideration in the mitigation of the sentence.

Where there is inordinate delay in initiating prosecution proceedings, the complaint

is liable to be dismissed as in the case of Rakoor Industries P.Ltd v. R.L. Ball, ITO
(2011) 332 ITR 56(Del)
In Narain Dev Dhablania v. ITO (2003) 262 ITR 206 (P&H)(High Court) held that
though the cause of action for initiating prosecution is furnished on the date when
income is concealed or on date when concealment becomes known to the
Department, once proceedings are finalised, the prosecution has to be commenced
within a reasonable period. (A.Y. 1975-76)
 20.Whether the Courts have the power to reduce
punishment
S.275A to 278A provide for punishment in terms of imprisonment but section
276D provides for fine as an alternative for imprisonment. Since the legislature
has used the phrase “shall be punishable” in each of the sections, the question
that arises whether the Court can interpret the phrase “shall be punishable” to
mean “may be punishable” and whether the Court will have discretion to award
the imprisonment or not, or to award only fine and not imprisonment.

The Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jaymanderalal, AIR 1966 SC 940,

while interpreting section 3(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women
and Girls Act, 1956, held that by using the expression shall be punishable, the
legislature has made it clear that the offender shall not escape the penal
consequences”.

In Modi Industries Ltd v. B.C. Goel, (1983) 144 ITR 496(All) (HC), has taken the
view that Courts have no power to reduce the punishment prescribed by the
statute.
 21. Compounding of offences
S. 279(2) empowers the Chief Commissioner or Director General to compound
an offence under the Act, either before or after the initiation of proceedings. The
Department has issued new set of guidelines for compounding of offences under
direct taxes vide notification F.No. 185/35/2013 IT (Inv.V)/108 dated December
23, 2014 (2015) 371 ITR 7 (St) (www.itatonline.org).

These guidelines replace the existing guidelines issued vide F.No 285/90/2008,
dated May 10 2008, with effect from January 1, 2015. However, cases that have
been filed before this date shall continue to be governed by earlier guidelines.
Under S.279(2), an offence can be compounded at any stage and not only when
the offence is proved to have been committed. Once compounding is effected,
the assessee cannot claim a refund of the composition amount paid on the
ground that he had not committed any of said offences (Shamrao Bhagwantrao
Deshmukh v. The Dominion of India (1995) 27 ITR 30 (SC)).
 Compounding of offences contd...
The requirement under S.279(2) is that the person applying for a composition
must have allegedly committed an offence. The compounding charges might be
paid even before a formal show cause notice has been issued. On the other
hand, even if the accused is convicted of an offence and an appeal has been
preferred against the same, there seems to be no particular bar to give effect to
a compounding during the pendency of such appeal and the accused shall not
have to undergo the sentence awarded if he pays the money to be paid for
compounding. Prosecution initiated under Indian Penal Code, if any, cannot be
compounded under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. However, S. 321 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, provides for withdrawal of such offences.

Notwithstanding anything contained in the guidelines, the Finance Minister may

relax restrictions for compounding of an offence in a deserving case on
consideration of a report from the board on the petition of an appellant.
 22.Procedure for compounding
The accused has to approach the Commissioner with a proposal for
compounding. A hearing has to be given to the assessee by the Commissioner on
the proposal for compounding made by him and thereafter the compounding
fees are finally determined. The ultimate decision as to the acceptance or refusal
of the compounding proposal lies with the Commissioner. If the Commissioner
accepts the proposal for compounding, the same would have to be
recommended by him to the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It may be noted that
offences under Indian Penal Code cannot be compounded by the competent
authority under the Income-tax Act. However, generally when the alleged
offences under direct tax laws are compounded, the prosecution launched for
the corresponding alleged offences under IPC are also withdrawn.

In V.A. Haseeb and Co. (Firm) v. CCIT (2017) 152 DTR 306 (Mad.) (HC), the Court
held that, application for compounding cannot be rejected merely because of
the conviction of assessee in the Criminal Court.

In Punjab Rice Mills v. CBDT ( 2011) 337 ITR 251 (P& H) (HC), it was held that the
Court will not compel the Commissioner to compound the offence or interfere
unless the exercise of discretionary statutory power was held to be perverse or
against the due process of law.
 Procedure for compounding contd...
In S Anil Batra v. CCIT (2011) 337 ITR 251 (Delhi)(HC), The Court held that where
three complaints had already been filed against petitioner for offence under
section 276B and in two of those, petitioner stood convicted by Court,
competent authority was not bound to effect compounding in violation of
mandatory prohibitions prescribed, therefore, offence could not be said to be
compoundable at instant stage. The Court up held the rejection order of
Commissioner for not compounding the offences. Writ petition of assessee was
dismissed. (A.Y. 1982 83 to 1984-85)
When High Court has given direction to consider the application for
compounding, pendency of appeal against conviction could no longer be a
reason for refusing consideration for compounding of offence.
In the case of Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue (CBDT) v. R. Inbavalli (2018) 400 ITR 352/301 CTR 225 (Mad.)
(HC),Allowing the petition the Court held that ;When High Court has given
direction to consider the application for compounding, pendency of appeal
against conviction could no longer be a reason for refusing consideration for
compounding of offence ,with in meaning of clause 4.4 (f) of Guidelines dated
16-5-2008 (F.No. 285/90/2008 - IT (Inv) dt. 16 th May .2008) (AY. 1996-97 to
1998-99)
 Procedure for compounding contd...
Failure by assessee to deposit amount deducted as tax at source was beyond its
control, Order rejecting application for compounding not sustainable.

In the case of Sports Infratech P. Ltd. v.Dy. CIT (2017) 391 ITR 98 (Delhi) (HC),
allowing the petition the Court held that ;failure by assessee to deposit amount
deducted as tax at source was beyond its control, Order rejecting application for
compounding not sustainable - Guidelines issued by CBDT do not bar for
consideration of application of offence having regard to facts of the case.

Compounding of an offence – No time limit is prescribed-The CBDT has no

jurisdiction to demand that the assessee pay a 'pre-deposit' as a pre-condition
to considering the compounding application.

In the case of Vikram Singh v. UOI (2017) 394 ITR 746 (Delhi) (HC) Allowing the
petition ;the Court held that; As, there is no time limit prescribed for filing an
application for compounding of an offense, the CBDT is not entitled to reject an
application on the ground of 'inordinate delay'. The CBDT has no jurisdiction to
demand that the assessee pay a 'pre-deposit' as a pre-condition to considering
the compounding application. The larger question as whether in the garb of a
Circular the CBDT can prescribe the compounding fee in the absence of such fee
being provided for either in the statute or prescribed under the rules is left
open.
 23.Power of the Settlement Commission to
grant immunity. S. 245H S.
245H(1)(2) (1) empowers the Settlement Commission under the specified
circumstances to grant immunity to the assessee from prosecution for an offence,
subject to such conditions as it may think fit to impose. However, sub-section (2) of
S.245H also empowers the Settlement Commission to withdraw the immunity so
granted if it is satisfied that such person has not complied with the conditions subject
to which immunity was granted or that such person had in the course of the
settlement proceedings concealed any particular relevant material or had led false
evidence.

In Nirmal and Navin P. Ltd. And Others v. D. Ravindran (2002) 255 ITR 514 (SC), the
Court held that when immunity is granted by Settlement Commission, it, was not
open to Criminal Court to go behind order passed by Settlement Commission. As per
the proviso to S. 245H(1), the Settlement Commission is precluded from granting
immunity from prosecution in cases where prosecution has been instituted on the
date of receipt of application for settlement, under section 245C.

In Anil Kumar Sinha v. UOI (2013) 352 ITR 170 (Pat.) (HC), the Court held that, if
prosecution is already launched and thereafter the assessee moves Settlement
Commission, the Settlement Commission was justified in not granting immunity in
respect of prosecution which was already launched u/s. 276CC of the Act.
 24.Power of Central Government to grant
immunity. S. 291

S. 291(1) of the said Act, confers on the Central Government a power, under
specified circumstances, to grant immunity to the assessee, from prosecution for
any offence under the Direct taxes, IPC or any other Central Act to a person, with
a view to obtain evidence. This is subject to condition of him making a full and
true disclosure of the whole circumstances relating to the concealment of
income or evasion of payment of tax on income. However, sub- section (3) of this
section, empowers the Central Government to withdraw the immunity so
granted, if such person has not complied with the condition on which such
immunity was granted or is wilfully concealing anything or is giving false
evidence.
 25. Whether for the offences committed under the Income-
tax Act, prosecution can also be launched under Indian
Penal Code

As per the provisions of S.26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, where an Act or
omission constitutes an offence under two or more enactments, the offender
shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished under either or any of those
enactments, but shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence
and the punishment shall run concurrently. To strengthen the case of the
revenue, generally the revenue also launches prosecution under the various
provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

A chart indicating briefly therein the various acts or omissions under the Direct
Tax laws which tantamount to commission of an offence under Indian Penal
Code is given in Annexure “ B”.
 26. QUASHING PETITION UNDER SEC. 482 OF
THE CR.P.C.
One of the most resorted to and sought after remedy in prosecutions under
Chapter XXII of the I.T. Act, is filing of a quashing petition under Sec. 482 of the
Cr.P.C. However, one has to understand that for each and every case, quashing
petition under Sec.482 of the Cr.C.P.C., may not be an effective remedy.

The general and consistent law is that the inherent power of the High Court
under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing has to be exercised sparingly with
circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.

The Supreme Court in Som Mittal vs Govt. Of Karnataka AIR 2008 SC 1528, has
held that the power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. Exercise of inherent power under Sec.
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not the rule but it is an exception. The
exception is applied only when it is brought to the notice of the Court that grave
miscarriage of justice would be committed if the trial is allowed to proceed
where the accused would be harassed unnecessarily if the trial is allowed to
linger when prima facie it appears to Court that the trial would likely to be ended
in acquittal.
 QUASHING PETITION UNDER SEC. 482 OF THE CR.P.C.
Contd...
In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava 2006 Cri LJ
4050, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that, the High Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Sec. 482 of the Code does not function either as a court of appeal
or revision, and held and envisaged that three circumstances under which the
inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely,
1. to give effect to an order under the Code,
2. to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, and
3. to otherwise secure the ends of justice.

In another case, State of Haryana and others v. Ch. BhajanLal &Ors AIR 1992 SC
604, the Supreme Court laid down the categories of cases in which the High Court
may, in exercise of powers under Sec. 226 of the Constitution of India or under Sec.
482 Cr.P.C., interfere in proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

In the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate 1998 Cri LJ 1, wherein it
has been specifically held that though the Magistrate trying a case has jurisdiction to
discharge the accused at any stage of the trial if he considers the charge to be
groundless but that does not mean that the accused cannot approach the High Court
under Sec. 482 of the Code or Article 227 of the Constitution to have the proceeding
quashed against them when no offence has been made out against them and still
why must they undergo the agony of a criminal trial.
 27.A brief check-list for filing proper reply to avoid the
prosecution
1. Whenever survey or search has taken place, if incriminating documents or
unaccounted assets are found, the assessee concerned has to evaluate
whether to approach the Settlement Commission or to take the said matter
in appeal.

2. Whenever the additions are made in assessments on an agreed basis, it

should be specifically brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that the
additions are agreed on to buy peace of mind as also with an understanding
that penalty and prosecution proceedings shall not be initiated.

3. Where any large additions are made in an assessment, order should be

agitated by preferring an appeal against the additions.

4. Whenever notice is issued for levy of the penalty for concealment of

particulars of income, a detailed reply should be given stating therein the
grounds for non-levy of the same and if the penalty is still levied, it should
be agitated in appeal at least till the Tribunal stage.
 A brief check-list for filing proper reply to avoid the
prosecution contd...

5. The prosecution proceedings are launched by the department on the basis of

evidence collected by them and it is necessary that proper replies, explanation,
etc. be given against the said evidence collected so that it cannot be used
against the assessee for launching of prosecution proceedings.

6. In the course of search, seizure or survey proceedings under the Act, statements
are recorded by the authorised officers and normally these statements are used
as evidences in the assessment and prosecution proceedings. Hence, it would be
advisable that specific answers be given to the queries put forward and in cases
where the assessee is doubtful of the answer, the said doubt as to the answer
may be specifically mentioned. In case of a statement on oath is recorded by
using coercion or threat, it would be advisable to retract the same immediately
by filing a letter or by filing an affidavit to that effect.

7. The directors of a company, before signing any return, such as TDS returns or
other documents, should get the same initialed and verified by a responsible
person such as the concerned manager, accountant, etc., to show that he has
taken reasonable care before signing the return.

8. The part time Directors of the company should not sign the Balance sheet, and in
the Director’s report, they should make it very clear that they are not
responsible for the day to day management of the Company.
A brief check-list for filing proper reply to avoid the
prosecution contd...
9. While giving reply to show cause notice, the Assessee has to give detailed reply
on facts. If certain evidences were not produced before the Authorities, they
should try to produce the same while giving reply to show cause notice.
However, technical mistakes need not be corrected while giving the reply.

10. The professionals generally should not use their letterhead or their name for
preparation of documents unless it is absolutely necessary.

11. While giving the certificate for the paper book compilation before the Tribunal
or any other authority, the contents need to be verified and only then must
the certificate be given. If the certificate is held to be incorrect thereafter, the
one who has given wrong certificate may get the notice from the competent
authorities to initiate prosecution proceedings.

12. If certain facts are not properly recorded by the Assessing officer, the assessee
should file the rectification application before the Assessing Officer. In certain
circumstances, it may be desirable to mention correct facts in the form of
affidavit. Assessee should be very careful in given the statement on oath in the
form of an affidavit.
 28. Conclusion
Tax consultants may have to guide assessees to better comply with the
provisions of the Act and adopt better tax management practices to maintain
the peace of mind. It may not be advisable to venture into highly adventurous
tax avoidance schemes just to avoid paying the Government the taxes due. One
should appreciate that the tax administration, with the help of technology and
reporting system, is well equipped to catch tax evaders. It is desired that all
citizens must follow the Article 51A of the Constitution of India being
fundamental duties read with 265 of the Constitution of India i.e., pay the taxes
which are rightfully due to Government, neither less nor more. I hope the CBDT
will also try to implement the suggestions of the Comptroller and Auditor
General of India for better administration of prosecution proceedings. Objective
suggestions from the readers will be highly appreciated.
 ISSUES
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUB-SEC. (1) AND SUB-SEC. (2) OF SEC. 276C OF THE I.T.
ACT
The wording and language in both sub-Sec. (1) and sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 276C of
the I.T. Act appear to be identical except for two important differences.

The sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 276C of the I.T. Act deals with evasion of any tax, penalty
or interest 'chargeable or imposable' under the Act.

The sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 276C of the I.T. Act deals with the evasion of the
'payment' of any tax, penalty or interest under the Act.

Therefore, it would appear that the provisions of sub-Sec.(1) of Sec. 276C

operate when any tax, penalty or interest is chargeable or imposable and the
same is alleged to have been evaded. On the other hand, the provisions of Sec.
276C(2) would operate when the payment of tax, penalty, or interest is due and
an attempt is made to evade the payment there of Vinodchandra C. Patel vs
State Of Gujarat[2001]118TAXMAN526(Guj) and Vinaychandra Chandulal Shah
vs State Of Gujarat[1995]213ITR307(Guj).
 ISSUES Contd...
For being charged, under Sec. 276C(2) following three conditions are required to
be fulfilled:
Wilful attempts in any manner,
To evade the payment of any tax, penalty or interest under this Act, and
The tax, penalty or interest that is assessed, imposed or charged as the case may
be and not otherwise.
The Kerala High Court has held that "Sub-Sec. (1) and (2) of Sec. 276C of the I.T.
Act, deal with two different situations. Sub-Sec. (1) deals with evasion of tax,
penalty or interest CHARGEABLE OR IMPOSABLE under the Act. Therefore,
evidently, WHAT IS CONTEMPLATED IS EVASION BEFORE CHARGING OR
IMPOSING tax, penalty or interest. That may include wilful suppression in the
returns before assessment and completion. But Sub-Sec. (2) DEALS WITH
EVADING THE PAYMENT OF TAX, PENALTY OR INTEREST under the Act. The
words CHARGEABLE OR IMPOSABLE ARE NOT THERE. What sub-Sec. (2) says is
without prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable on him under any other
provision of this Act, be punishable...... Therefore, evidently, Sub-Sec. (2) TAKES
IN CASES OF TAX EVASION AFTER CHARGING OR IMPOSITION. Evasion after
completion of assessment also comes within the operation of the sub-Sec.2 .
 ISSUES Contd...
FILING OF RETURN UNDER SEC. 276CC: WITHIN TIME – PROSECTION WRONG
In a revision petition against the proceedings under Sec. 276C(1) of the I.T. Act before
the Andhra Pradesh High Court, it was held that where the respondents have yet to
file a return, the prosecution is premature and the dismissal of the complaint is right.
Thus, even before the act of attempt to evade is started, on a mere anticipation or
contemplation that there may be a possibility of accruing liability after finalization of
regular assessment proceedings, it cannot be said that the accused is liable for
conviction under Sec. 276C(1) of the I.T. Act15.

For the interpretation of Sec.276CC of the I.T. Act, in a criminal appeal titled Sasi
Enterprises Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(2014) 361 ITR 163 (SC)., the
Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India formulated the following questions as under:
1.Whether an Assessee has the liability/duty to file a return under Sec. 139(1) of the
Act within the due date prescribed therein?

2.What is the effect of best judgment assessment under Sec. 144 of the Act and will it
nullify the liability of the Assessee to file its return under Sec. 139(1) of the Act?

3.Whether non-filing of return under Sec. 139(1) of the Act, as well as non-
compliance of the time prescribed under Sec.s 142 and 148 of the Act are grounds
for invocation of the provisions of Sec. 276CC of the Act?
 ISSUES Contd...
4.Whether the pendency of the appellate proceedings relating to assessment or
non-attaining finality of the assessment proceedings is a bar in initiating
prosecution proceedings under Sec. 276CC due to non-filing of returns?

5.What is the scope of Sec. 278E of the Act, and at what stage the presumption
can be drawn by the Court?

While answering the above questions framed by it, the Supreme Court has held
as under:
"Sec. 276CC applies to situations where an Assessee has failed to file a return of
income as required under Sec. 139of the Act or in response to notices issued to
the Assessee under Sec. 142 or Sec. 148of the Act."

The proviso to Sec. 276CC gives some relief to genuine assesses. The proviso to
Sec. 276CC gives further time till the end of the assessment year to furnish
return to avoid prosecution. In other words, even though the due date would be
31st August of the assessment year as per Sec. 139(1) of the Act, an Assessee
gets further seven months' time to complete and file the return and such a
return though belated, may not attract prosecution of the Assessee.
 ISSUES Contd...
Similarly, the proviso in clause ii(b) to Sec. 276CC also provides that if the tax
payable determined by regular assessment has reduced by advance tax paid and
tax deducted at source does not exceed Rs. 3,000/-, such an Assessee shall not
be prosecuted for not furnishing the return under Sec. 139(1) of the Act.
Resultantly, the proviso under Sec. 276CC takes care of genuine assesses who
either file the returns belatedly but within the end of the assessment year or
those who have paid substantial amounts of their tax dues by pre-paid taxes,
from the rigor of the prosecution under Sec. 276CC of the Act.

Sec. 276CC contemplates that an offence is committed on the non-filing of the

return and it is totally unrelated to the pendency of assessment proceedings.
The department may resort to best judgment assessment or otherwise to past
years to determine the extent of the breach. The language of Sec. 276CC, is clear
so also the legislative intention.

It is trite law that as already held by the Supreme Court in B. Permanand v.

Mohan Koikal that "the language employed in a statute is the determinative
factor of the legislative intent. It is well settled principle of law that a court
cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and
unambiguous". If it was the intention of the legislature to hold up the
prosecution proceedings till the assessment proceedings are completed by way
of appeal or otherwise the same would have been provided in Sec. 276CC itself.
 ISSUES Contd...

Therefore, it would be wrong to hold that no prosecution could be

initiated till the culmination of assessment proceedings, especially in a
case where the Appellant had not filed the return as per Sec. 139(1) of
the Act or following the notices issued under Sec. 142 or Sec. 148 does
not arise.

The Revenue is entitled as per section 278D to reply on the presumption

under section 132(4A) in a prosecution filed under section 275A.

Where the assessee had deposited Rs. 50,000 even prior to filing his reply
to the show cause notice praying for time to deposit the entire amount
and subsequently deposited the entire amount with interest, it was held
that there had been no wilful attempt on the part of the assessee to
evade payment of tax and prosecution u/s 276C was not proper.
Sushil Kumar Saboo. v. State of Bihar (2011) 336 ITR 202 (Pat.)(High
Court)
 THANK YOU

Ajay R. Singh Adv.

MO: 9892212125
Email: [email protected]

86
Shri Ajay Singh