Whatsapp
Penalty and Criminal Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Understanding the Hierarchical Relationship with Assessment Orders
How Penalty Cancellation Automatically Quashes Criminal Prosecution and the Supreme Court’s Doctrine of Simultaneity
Introduction: The Paradox of Simultaneous But Interconnected Proceedings
Income tax law presents a seemingly contradictory framework: criminal prosecution and penalty proceedings are simultaneously independent, yet hierarchically intertwined. An assessee can face both penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and criminal prosecution under Section 276C for the same conduct—concealment of income. Yet this independence comes with a critical caveat: when penalties are cancelled, criminal prosecution stands automatically quashed.
This article explores the intricate relationship between penalty and criminal prosecution under Income Tax Act, examining the Supreme Court’s doctrine of simultaneity established in K.C. Builders, the principle that appellate tribunal findings are binding on criminal courts, and the practical implications for tax practitioners and assessees. The relationship between these criminal prosecution and penalty proceedings is perhaps the most misunderstood aspect of income tax law, often leading to costly litigation over issues that were already resolved.
Part I: The Statutory Framework
Section 271(1)(c): Civil Penalty for Concealment
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides for civil penalties:
“271. Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.—(1) If the assessing officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person… (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty…” [1]
This is a civil remedy—a monetary penalty imposed by administrative authority. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities (preponderance of probabilities). The assessee’s right to a hearing, appeal before CIT(A), and further appeal to ITAT are guaranteed.
Section 276C: Criminal Prosecution for Willful Tax Evasion
Section 276C(1) provides for criminal prosecution:
“276C. Punishment for willfully attempting to evade tax.—(1) If a person wilfully attempts in any manner whatsoever to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable, or under reports his income under this Act, he shall, without prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable on him under any other provision of this Act, be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine where the amount of tax sought to be evaded exceeds Rs. 25 lakhs…” [2]
This is a criminal offense. The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt—the most stringent standard in law. Prosecution requires sanction from the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under Section 276C(2).
Key distinction: Section 276C requires wilful attempt to evade tax—a positive act demonstrating conscious and intentional effort. Mere technical non-compliance or bona fide errors do not attract criminal prosecution.
Section 277: Criminal Prosecution for False Verification
Section 277 deals with false statements in verification:
“277. Punishment for falsification of books of account, etc.—If a person, in any verification under the Act or under any rule made thereunder, or in any document required to be submitted to the tax authorities, makes a statement 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 for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine where the amount of tax involved exceeds Rs. 25 lakhs…” [3]
Section 278B: Vicarious Liability for Corporate Entities
Section 278B extends criminal liability:
“278B(1) Where an offence under the Income Tax Act has been committed by a company, every person in charge of and responsible for the conduct of its business as well as the company itself shall be deemed guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.” [4]
However, the section provides a defense: individuals shall not be liable if they prove that the offense was committed without their knowledge or that they exercised all due diligence.
Section 120B IPC: Conspiracy and Abetment
Criminal investigations often implicate Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (criminal conspiracy) and Section 278 of the Income Tax Act (abetment of false returns). K.C. Builders involved charges under both the Income Tax Act and the IPC.[5]
Section 120B IPC defines criminal conspiracy as an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act or a legal act in an unlawful manner.
Part II: The Supreme Court’s Landmark K.C. Builders Judgment
Case Facts and Procedural History
The K.C. Builders case, decided by the Supreme Court in 2004 and reported as (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC), involved a partnership firm engaged in construction and flat sales.[5]
Facts: The firm initially filed returns disclosing lower income. Subsequently, based on an approved valuer’s report, revised returns were filed with significantly higher construction costs, reducing income. The Assessing Officer treated the difference between original and revised returns as concealed income and levied penalties under Section 271(1)(c).
Concurrent Criminal Proceedings: Following directions from the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, four criminal complaints were filed alleging offenses under:
- Section 276C(2) (willful attempt to evade tax)
- Section 278B (abetment of false returns)
- Sections 120B, 34, 193, 196, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (conspiracy, falsification of documents)
ITAT Decision: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concluded that there was no concealment of income. The ITAT found that the additions were based on a settlement between the assessee and the Department representing a voluntary offer. Following the principle in Sir Shadi Lal Sugar Mills, the ITAT cancelled the penalties.
Penalty Cancellation: Following the ITAT’s order, the Assessing Officer cancelled the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c).
Criminal Proceedings: Despite the ITAT’s order and penalty cancellation, the criminal proceedings continued. The appellants filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the High Court, which was dismissed. They then moved to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Simultaneity of Penalty and Criminal Proceedings under Income tax
In its landmark judgment, the Supreme Court made the following pronouncement:
“27. It is settled law that levy of penalties and prosecution under Section 276C are simultaneous. Hence, once the penalties are cancelled on the ground that there is no concealment, the quashing of prosecution under Section 276C is automatic. [Emphasis supplied]” [6]
This statement establishes two critical principles:
- Simultaneity Doctrine: Penalty proceedings and criminal prosecution are simultaneous proceedings—they occur together, addressing the same conduct from different angles.
- Automatic Quashing: When penalties are cancelled (implying no concealment), criminal prosecution is automatically quashed without requiring a separate petition.
The Binding Nature of Appellate Tribunal Findings
The Supreme Court further held: [5][6]
“28. In our opinion, the appellants cannot be made to suffer and face the rigours of criminal trial when the same cannot be sustained in the eye of the law because the entire prosecution in view of a conclusive finding of the Income Tax Tribunal that there is no concealment of income becomes devoid of jurisdiction and under Section 254 of the Act, a finding of the Appellate Tribunal supersedes the order of the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) more so when the Assessing Officer cancelled the penalty levied.” [Emphasis supplied]
This pronouncement establishes:
- Jurisdictional Issue: Once the ITAT finds no concealment, the entire prosecution basis collapses, making the criminal prosecution “devoid of jurisdiction.”
- Supersession of Order: The ITAT’s finding is conclusive and binding on criminal courts. The criminal court cannot reexamine or override the ITAT’s factual determination.
- Finality of Finding: The ITAT’s order is final on the question of concealment of income. A criminal court is bound by this finding when conducting criminal prosecution based on the same facts.
Practical Impact: Automatic Relief Without Separate Petition
The Supreme Court explicitly held: [6]
“It is apparent that the Supreme Court has clearly held that once the penalties are cancelled on the ground that there is no concealment, the quashment of the prosecution under Section 276C is automatic.”
This means: An assessee whose penalties are cancelled need not separately petition the criminal court to quash the prosecution. The quashing is automatic and ipso facto (by operation of law).
Part III: Chhattisgarh High Court Application of K.C. Builders
The Prashant Kumar Mishra Case
The Chhattisgarh High Court in Prashant Kumar Mishra (Chhattisgarh HC) applied K.C. Builders principles directly and unambiguously. [7]
Facts: A penalty was imposed on the assessee for concealment of income. However, the CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty on the finding that the assessee did not conceal income. Despite this, criminal proceedings under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income Tax Act continued before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. [7]
Court’s Holding: The High Court held:
“Held, that in view of the position that the penalty levied on the petitioner was set aside, the criminal proceedings pending on the file of CJM may also be quashed… The finding of the Appellate Tribunal was conclusive and the prosecution cannot be sustained since the penalty after having been decided by the complainant following the Appellate Tribunal’s order, no offence survives under the Income Tax Act and thus quashing of prosecution is automatic.” [7]
The Court emphasized:
“The High Court relied on K.C. Builders v. CIT, wherein the Supreme Court held that ‘once the finding of concealment and subsequent levy of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been struck down by the Tribunal, the assessing officer has no other alternative except to correct his order under Section 154 of the Act as per the directions of the Tribunal.'”
The Madhya Pradesh High Court Reaffirmation (July 2024)
A more recent Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment (July 20, 2024) in a Criminal Revision Petition reaffirmed K.C. Builders with compelling clarity: [6]
“Hence, once the penalties are cancelled on the ground that there is no concealment, the quashing of prosecution under Section 276C is automatic. In such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the criminal prosecution of the petitioner has already come to an end, however, to give it stamp of approval to such quashment, it is directed that the order dated 31.01.2018 shall stand quashed and consequently, the criminal prosecution is also hereby quashed.”
Part IV: The Competing Doctrine of Independence
The Supreme Court’s Caveat: Independent Proceedings Under Sasi Enterprises
However, there is a seemingly contradictory line of Supreme Court authority. In Sasi Enterprises v. ACIT (2014) 5 SCC 139, 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 proceedings to proceed even during the pendency of the proceedings under the Act.”[8]
Key Clarification: This judgment concerns Section 276CC (failure to file returns), not Section 276C (willful evasion of tax).
Section 276CC provides: “If a person wilfully fails to furnish in due time the return of income which he is required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 139 or by notice given under section 142 or section 148… he shall be punishable…” [8]
The critical distinction is: The offense of non-filing is complete and independent of the assessment proceedings. Whether or not an assessment is finalized, the act of failing to file the return is an independent offense.
Distinguishing Between Section 276C and Section 276CC
The Madras High Court in a 2025 judgment made this distinction crystal clear:
“Reliance placed by the taxpayer on the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Builders cannot be applied to the case on hand since the taxpayer failed to file the tax return and concealed the income. The said judgment stating that once the penalties are cancelled on the ground that there is no concealment, the quashing of prosecution under Section 276C of the IT Act is automatic, is not applicable to the case on hand. Mens rea is categorically proved against the taxpayer. It was found that there was concealment of income by the taxpayer.” [9]
The subtle but critical point: K.C. Builders applies when the basis for the charge—concealment of income—is negated by the appellate tribunal. If the tribunal confirms concealment despite modifying the quantum or other aspects of assessment, K.C. Builders does not apply.
The Supreme Court’s Position in Income Tax v. Bhupen Champak Lal Dalal
In Income Tax v. Bhupen Champak Lal Dalal, AIR 2001 SC 1096, the Supreme Court provided nuance: [8]
“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 proceedings 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.” [Emphasis supplied]
This judgment recognizes:
- Independence in Form: Criminal and tax proceedings are technically independent.
- Interdependence in Substance: When appellate findings in tax proceedings have direct relevance to criminal proceedings, courts should exercise restraint and await appellate conclusions.
- Discretionary Approach: The court has discretion to stay criminal proceedings pending appellate conclusions, but no legal bar prevents simultaneity.
Part V: The Recent Supreme Court Judgment on Criminal Prosecution (August 2025)
Vijay Krishnaswami Case: Reaffirming K.C. Builders Principles
A very recent Supreme Court judgment of August 28, 2025, by Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi provides fresh clarity on Section 276C(1): [2]
“The Supreme Court on August 28, 2025 held that Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act is intended to deter and penalize wilful and deliberate attempts by an assessee to evade taxes, penalties and interest prior to their imposition or charging. The provision applies where there is a conscious and intentional effort to evade liability, distinguishing such conduct from bona fide errors or interpretational differences.”
Prosecution Quashed in Settlement Case:
The Court examined the case of an assessee who had undergone settlement proceedings under Section 245C. After the Settlement Commission concluded proceedings, the Revenue continued criminal prosecution in defiance of CBDT Circular dated April 24, 2008, which directs automatic immunity from prosecution upon settlement.
The Court held:
“The Court held that the prosecution had been launched contrary to the proviso to Section 245H(1) and in defiance of the binding Central Board of Direct Taxes circular dated April 24, 2008. The bench said such action could not be justified as the authorities failed to take into account their own circulars and procedural requirements. The Court observed, ‘Such an act cannot be construed in the right perspective and the Revenue have acted in blatant disregard to binding statutory instructions. Such wilful non-compliance of their own directives reflects a serious lapse, and undermines the principles of fairness, consistency, and accountability.'” [2]
This judgment demonstrates that courts will intervene when criminal prosecution is launched without proper legal foundation, even when the foundational civil proceedings (penalty/settlement) have concluded.
Part VI: Practical Scenarios Illustrating the Relationship
Scenario 1: Tribunal Finds No Concealment—Criminal Prosecution Must Be Quashed
Facts: An AO added Rs. 50 lakhs to income based on alleged concealment and levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Criminal prosecution was also initiated under Section 276C. The assessee appealed, and the ITAT found that the addition was based on legitimate business reason and there was no concealment.
Legal Position:
Following K.C. Builders and the Chhattisgarh HC judgment: [7]
- The penalty is automatically cancelled
- The criminal prosecution is automatically quashed WITHOUT requiring a separate petition
- The assessee need not appear before the criminal court
- The criminal trial ceases
Scenario 2: Tribunal Reduces Addition But Confirms Concealment
Facts: AO added Rs. 100 lakhs treating it as concealment. Tribunal reduces the addition to Rs. 60 lakhs BUT confirms that concealment existed.
Legal Position:
- The penalty is modified to Rs. 60 lakhs quantum but not cancelled
- Criminal prosecution CONTINUES because concealment is confirmed
- K.C. Builders does not apply (because concealment is not negated)
- Criminal prosecution proceeds to trial[5]
Scenario 3: Penalty Cancelled by CIT(A), Criminal Prosecution Continues
Facts: An AO imposed penalty. CIT(A) cancelled it on ground that facts do not justify satisfaction of concealment. However, criminal proceedings continue.[7]
Legal Position:
- Following Chhattisgarh HC judgment: Criminal prosecution must be quashed
- The CIT(A)’s finding that concealment does not exist is binding
- The automatic quashing doctrine applies
Scenario 4: Settlement Commission Grants Immunity, Revenue Prosecutes
Facts: Assessee applied for settlement under Section 245C. Settlement Commission accepted the settlement application. Under Section 245H and CBDT Circular, immunity from prosecution is granted. However, Revenue files criminal prosecution.[2]
Legal Position: Following the August 2025 Supreme Court judgment:
- Criminal prosecution is invalid
- Court will quash prosecution as it violates binding CBDT circulars
- Court will award damages for wrongful prosecution
Scenario 5: Assessment Reopened, Fresh Penalty, Concurrent Criminal Proceedings
Facts: Original assessment made. Penalty imposed and criminal prosecution initiated. Subsequently, assessment is reopened under Section 147. In fresh assessment, AO again records satisfaction and imposes penalty. Criminal prosecution continues.
Legal Position:
- Fresh penalty in reopened assessment is independent and separate
- If fresh penalty is cancelled by appellate authority, criminal prosecution based on fresh satisfaction is quashed
- If original penalty was cancelled by appellate authority BUT fresh penalty survives, criminal prosecution based on original satisfaction is quashed but prosecution relating to fresh satisfaction may continue
- Courts apply fact-by-fact analysis[6]
Scenario 6: Non-Filing of Return—Section 276CC Prosecution
Facts: Assessee failed to file return for Assessment Year 2022-23. Revenue initiated prosecution under Section 276CC. Assessee later files belated return under Section 139(4). Penalty proceedings are dropped.
Legal Position:
- The offense of non-filing is independent of penalty proceedings
- Dropping penalty does NOT automatically quash Section 276CC prosecution
- The crime was the failure to file—filing subsequently does not undo the failure
- Criminal prosecution can proceed independently
Distinction from K.C. Builders: K.C. Builders applies to concealment-based charges under Section 276C, not non-filing under Section 276CC.
Part VII: Procedural Aspects—Sanction for Prosecution
Sanction Requirement Under Section 276C(2)
Before criminal prosecution under Section 276C can be initiated, sanction is required from:
- The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Income Tax, or
- The Principal Director General or Director General of Income Tax (as the case may be)
When Sanction Can Be Withdrawn
An important practical aspect: Can sanction be withdrawn after criminal prosecution has begun?
The answer is contextual:
- Before Charge Sheet: Yes, sanction can be withdrawn, and if withdrawn, prosecution becomes invalid.
- After Charge Sheet but During Trial: Generally, withdrawal is not possible without the court’s permission.
- After Settlement/Penalty Cancellation: While sanction formally remains, courts will not permit prosecution to proceed when the factual foundation (concealment) is negated.
Part VIII: The Question of Binding Effect—Appellate Tribunal vs. Criminal Court
Is ITAT Finding Binding on Criminal Court?
The Supreme Court in K.C. Builders held that the ITAT’s finding of no concealment is binding on the criminal court. This requires clarification:
Nature of Binding Effect: The ITAT’s finding is binding as to facts, but the criminal court can reapply law to those facts.[5]
Example:
- ITAT Finds: No concealment of income; the difference between returned and assessed income was due to revised valuations communicated by the assessee.
- Criminal Court’s Role: The criminal court accepts this finding of fact. However, it could theoretically examine whether even accepting this fact, the conduct amounted to a wilful attempt to evade through some other means (e.g., falsification of documents).
However, in practice, once the ITAT negates concealment, criminal courts consistently hold that no offense survives.
When Criminal Court Can Ignore ITAT Finding
The Madras High Court (2025) and Radheshyam Kejriwal principles suggest limited circumstances:[9]
- Technical vs. Substantive Grounds: If exoneration in appellate proceedings is on technical grounds (not on merit), prosecution may theoretically continue. However, this is a rare exception.
- Different Ingredients: If criminal charge is based on a different ingredient (e.g., false verification under Section 277) than the tax proceeding, findings may not be binding.
- Different Parties: If criminal prosecution involves abettors or co-conspirators not party to tax proceedings, those parties’ conduct is subject to criminal court’s assessment.
Part IX: Charges Beyond Section 276C—Sections 277 and 278B
Section 277: False Verification
Section 277 charges are distinct. A taxpayer could:
- Face penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment AND
- Face prosecution under Section 277 for making false statements in verification
If the penalty for concealment is cancelled but false verification is independently proved, Section 277 prosecution can survive.[3]
However, if the false verification charge is parasitic on the concealment finding, it falls when concealment is negated.
Section 278B: Vicarious Liability for Directors and Officers
Section 278B makes directors and officers of companies vicariously liable.
Critical Defense: Section 278B(1) provides that an individual director/officer shall NOT be liable if they prove:[4]
- The offense was committed without their knowledge, OR
- They exercised all due diligence to prevent commission
If criminal prosecution under 276C is quashed due to negated concealment, Section 278B charges against directors automatically fall as well.
However, if Section 278B charges are based on corporate negligence or internal controls failures, they may proceed independently.
Part X: The Concurrent Jurisdiction Framework
Departmental vs. Criminal Proceedings Can Run Simultaneously
A clarification must be made: Penalty proceedings (civil/administrative) and criminal proceedings CAN run simultaneously. There is no legal bar.
The Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 679 held: [6]
“Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately.”
Exercise of Judicial Discretion
However, courts in individual cases may exercise discretion to stay departmental/penalty proceedings pending criminal trial if:
- The same facts and evidence form the basis
- Criminal proceedings involve grave charges
- Continuing parallel proceedings may prejudice the accused’s defense
But once criminal prosecution is negated by appellate tribunal findings, courts will not permit its continuation even if penalty was imposed.[7]
Part XI: Mens Rea Requirements
Willful Attempt Required for Section 276C
The Supreme Court’s August 2025 judgment emphasized that Section 276C requires willful and deliberate attempt to evade.[2]
Mere Mistake Not Sufficient: If an assessee made an honest mistake in computation leading to understatement of income, Section 276C does not apply.
Intentional Wrongdoing Required: The prosecution must establish:
- A positive act (not mere omission)
- Conscious intention to evade
- Knowledge that the act would evade tax
Impact on Criminal Prosecution: Assessees prosecuted under Section 276C can argue in criminal court that they acted on honest interpretation and lacked mens rea. If successful, criminal conviction is not possible. However, this defense does not automatically affect penalty under Section 271(1)(c), which has a lower threshold.[1]
Part XII: Recent Judicial Trends (2024-2025)
Increasing Judicial Scrutiny of Criminal Prosecution
Recent judgments show courts becoming increasingly stringent in examining whether criminal prosecution should proceed:
- August 2025 Supreme Court: Quashed prosecution where settlement immunity was disregarded.[2]
- Madras High Court (2025): Confirmed that while proceedings are technically independent, criminal prosecution based on unproven concealment allegation cannot proceed.
- Chhattisgarh HC (July 2024): Reaffirmed automatic quashing doctrine even when criminal proceedings had advanced.[6]
CBDT Circulars Gaining Statutory Force
The August 2025 judgment treated CBDT Circular No. 10/2016 (April 24, 2008) as “binding statutory instruction.” This suggests:[2]
- CBDT directives on prosecution immunity are now treated with statutory force
- Revenue disregarding these circulars invites court intervention
- Procedural compliance before prosecution is critical
Part XIII: Practical Checklist for Practitioners
For Assessees Facing Both Penalty and Criminal Prosecution under Income Tax:
- Immediately challenge the penalty before CIT(A)/ITAT, as cancellation automatically quashes criminal prosecution
- Assert facts contradicting concealment at every stage—the appellate tribunal’s factual finding is binding on criminal court
- Reference K.C. Builders and recent judgments in criminal court, emphasizing automatic quashing doctrine
- Seek interim relief (stay) of criminal trial pending appellate determination of penalty, citing Bhupen Champak Lal Dalal principles
- Examine whether settlement opportunity exists under Section 245C and CBDT circulars, which grant immunity from prosecution
- Distinguish Section 276C (concealment-based) from Section 276CC (non-filing) if applicable
- Challenge sufficiency of mens rea in criminal court, emphasizing honest business judgment or bona fide interpretation
- Cite August 2025 Supreme Court judgment on strict mens rea requirement and Court’s intolerance of procedurally defective prosecution
For Revenue and Investigating Officers:
- Do NOT initiate criminal prosecution simultaneously with penalty without strong, conclusive evidence of willful evasion
- Ensure sanction is properly granted and documented before filing criminal complaint
- Align with CBDT circulars regarding settlement immunity and prosecution procedures
- Prepare criminal prosecution strategy on the assumption that appellate tribunal may negate concealment, making prosecution unviable
- For Section 276CC cases (non-filing): Prosecute independently, as this is less dependent on appellate tribunal conclusions
- Distinguish between penalties and prosecution: Even if penalty is upheld, ensure criminal prosecution is based on additional evidence of willful evasion, not just concealment finding
Conclusion: Simultaneity with Hierarchy
The relationship between penalty and criminal prosecution in income tax law is precisely captured by the phrase: “Simultaneous but hierarchical.”
They are simultaneous because both can proceed concurrently without legal impediment. However, they are hierarchical because the civil finding of concealment (or its absence) in the appellate process has decisive impact on criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court’s doctrine in K.C. Builders—that penalty cancellation automatically quashes criminal prosecution—is now settled law affirmed by High Courts across jurisdictions and the August 2025 Supreme Court ruling. This doctrine provides a powerful protective mechanism for assessees facing criminal prosecution, making challenge to the underlying penalty the most strategic approach.
For tax practitioners, the critical insight is: In cases involving both penalty and criminal prosecution under Income Tax, the battle is primarily fought in the appellate tax proceedings. Success in negating concealment before ITAT automatically neutralizes the criminal charge, regardless of criminal court proceedings. This understanding has profound implications for litigation strategy and resource allocation.
Reference
[1] Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): A Comprehensive Analysis Available at: https://itatonline.org/articles_new/penalty-us-2711c-a-comprehensive-analysis-k-c-singhal-advocate/
[2] Supreme Court clarifies scope of Section 276C(1) IT Act Available at: https://lawbeat.in/supreme-court-judgments/supreme-court-clarifies-scope-of-section-276c1-it-act-wilful-tax-evasion-must-be-proved-quashes-prosecution-in-settlement-case-1517865
[3] Sections 276C, 277 and 278 Available at: https://bcajonline.org/journal/offences-and-prosecution-sections-276c-277-and-278-wilful-attempt-to-evade-tax-false-verification-in-return-abetment-of-false-returns-condition-prece/
[4]Section 278B of the Income Tax Act Available at:
https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/section-278b-of-the-income-tax-act
[5] KC Builders V Cit Available at: https://www.scribd.com/document/855639097/Kc-Builders-v-Cit
[6]AYUSH JAIN Versus UNION OF INDIA Available at: https://mphc.gov.in/upload/indore/MPHCIND/2021/MCRC/41735/MCRC_41735_2021_FinalOrder_20-07-2024.pdf
[7] Prosecution under Ss. 276-C and 277 of Income Tax Act doesn’t survive if penalty imposed on assessee is deleted by appellate authority… Available at:
[8] STAY ON THE CRIMINAL TRIAL FOR WILFUL EVASION OF TAX UNDER SECTION 276(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961…. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stay-criminal-trial-wilful-evasion-tax-under-section-276c-dalmia
[9] Direct Tax Alert Available at:
