Search Results For: 276C


COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 26, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 13, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Prosecution u/s 276C for tax evasion: If the assessee's appeal against levy of s. 271(1)(c) penalty for concealment of income is allowed & has become final, the quashing of prosecution is automatic. The High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the prosecution and not indulge in the empty formality of directing the assessee to approach the trial Magistrate (K. C. Builders 265 ITR 562 (SC) followed)

The subject matter of the complaint being concealment of income arrived at on the basis of the finding of the assessing officer, if the Tribunal has set aside the order of concealment and penalties, there is no concealment in the eye of law and, therefore, the prosecution cannot be proceeded with by the complainant and further proceedings will be illegal and without jurisdiction

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 14, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 27, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 276C Prosecution: Prosecution should not be launched hurriedly by the Dept during the pendency of case before the ITAT. The law of limitation u/s 468 Cr.P.C. for criminal prosecution has been excluded by the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974 & so there is no need for hasty action. Meaning of "wilful attempt to evade tax" explained (All imp judgements referred).

The very edifice on which the prosecution was launched against the accused, has crumbled like a pack of cards. There was no necessity for the Income Tax Department to have launched the prosecution hurriedly since the law of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. for criminal prosecution has been excluded by the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974. In fact, even in the complaint, the Income Tax Officer has stated that the accused has approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. This shows that the Income Tax Officer was aware of the fact that the accused is agitating his case before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is the final fact-finding body

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 21, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 29, 2019 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 276C Prosecution: If the Appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law, there is no justification for the DCIT to threaten the assessee with prosecution. Even if such prosecution is launched, the same shall not proceed till the pendency of the Appeal

Once we have admitted the Appeal on substantial questions of law, we do not think that there is any justification for the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle8( 1) to threaten the appellant/applicant with any prosecution. Even if such prosecution is launched, the same shall not proceed till the pendency of this Appeal

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 28, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 13, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Prosecution u/s 276-C/277: S. 278E carves out an exception to the rule of mens rea. The burden of proving the absence of mens rea is upon the accused. The absence needs to be proved not only to the basic threshold of “preponderance of probability” but “beyond reasonable doubt”. In every prosecution case, the Court shall always presume culpable mental state and it is for the accused to prove the contrary beyond reasonable doubt. This presumption is a rebuttable one

When a calculating tax dodger finds it a profitable proposition to carry on evading taxes over the years, if the only risk to which he is exposed is a monetary penalty in the year in which he happens to be caught. The public in general also tends to lose faith and confidence in tax administration when a tax evader is caught, but the administration lets him get away lightly after paying only a monetary penalty- when money is no longer a major consideration with him if it serves his business interest

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 17, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 29, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 276C/ 279 Compounding of offenses: The expression "amount sought to be evaded" in CBDT's compounding guidelines dated 23.12.2014 means the amount of "tax sought to be evaded" and not the amount of "income sought to be evaded"

In the prescription of punishment thus, when there is a reference to amount sought to be evaded, it must be seen in light of the willful attempt on the part of the concerned person to evade tax, penalty or interest. This provision thus, links the severity of punishment on the amount sought to be evaded and thus, in turn has relation to the attempt at evasion of tax, penalty or interest. Thus, when the CBDT circular refers to the amount sought to be evaded, it must be seen and understood in light of the provisions contained in section 276C(1) and in turn must be seen as amount sought to be evaded. 100% of tax sought to be evaded would be the basic compounding fees

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 4, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 15, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2014-15
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
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

In the event, the petitioner seeks a stay of the order passed by the Assessment Officer by making a stay application, then, 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. Thus, the ad interim stay granted by this Court would continue till the disposal of the application for stay by the First Appellate Authority

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 23, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 27, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 279(2): Entire law on the compounding of offenses u/s 276C, 277 read with S. 278D explained in the context of whether the CBDT Guidelines on compounding of offenses dated 23.12.2014 prescribing eligibility conditions and the formula for calculating the compounding fee are valid or unreasonable

The petitioner having voluntarily agreed and undertaken to the department to pay the compounding charges and to withdraw his appeal, ought to be directed to be bound down by the same. It is a settlement process voluntarily invoked by the petitioner in order to escape criminal prosecution under the Act. Since an accused may have to suffer severe consequences for non-payment of tax, if he is held to be guilty, it is not open to him to challenge the reasonableness of the same. The petitioner had consciously undertaken to abide by the decision of the Committee constituted for compounding the offences

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 23, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 276C/277 Prosecution: Submission that claim of depreciation on land was a “mere clerical mistake” is not acceptable if the assessee did not file a revised return to correct the alleged mistake. A claim in a return which is scrutinized by the auditors and the directors cannot be considered as a mere accounting mistake

It is a manifest procedure that before filing of the Income Tax return for the assessment year 2007-2008 by the petitioner, the same is scrutinized, firstly, by the auditors of the company. Secondly, by the directors of the company before endorsing their signatures on the final Balance Sheet. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a mere accounting mistake