The Department has appealed against my acquittal on a s.276CC charge. Given the presumption in s.278E, how much has the Department still to prove?
It still has to prove the wilfulness. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the Department's appeal against an acquittal for a 28-month delay in filing a return, holding that even with the presumption in s.278E the complainant must bring home the mens rea, that the accused's explanation together with payment of the tax and penalty rebutted it, and that in an appeal against acquittal, where two views are plausible, the view favouring innocence prevails.
Decided by the High Court (Anoop Kumar Dhand J) on 2024-04-02, reported as S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 543/1991 (High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur); marked Reportable. It bears on section 276CC, section 278E, section 139(1), section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Prosecution and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters.
Most s.276CC material is about quashing and discharge; this is what the section looks like after a trial, and it is the answer to the argument that s.278E makes conviction automatic. Two things carry over to a live case. The first is evidentiary: the accused led no defence evidence and still succeeded, because the explanation given in his s.313 CrPC statement, the payment of tax and penalty, and the absence of any notice before the complaint left the prosecution short. The second is procedural: the appellate standard in an appeal against acquittal is not the same as on a first appeal, and that alone can decide the case. Set against this the Karnataka line, which holds that the presumption must be rebutted by material led before the Magistrate and that payment of penalty does not exonerate — the two are not in conflict, because they address different stages, but a practitioner should not read this judgment as licence to leave the defence unproved.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The Income Tax Officer, after obtaining sanction from the Commissioner of Income Tax, filed a criminal complaint under s.276CC alleging that the respondent had not submitted his return of income under s.139(1) for AY 1978-79 by 31.07.1978 and had filed it only on 31.12.1980, a delay of more than 28 months. Proceedings under s.271(1) were initiated by notice dated 31.12.1981; the respondent filed no explanation and did not reply to a reminder, and a penalty of Rs.2,200 was imposed by order dated 10.11.1984. At trial before the Special Magistrate (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur, the complainant examined PW-1 D.P. Govil, charges were framed, the accused denied them and claimed trial, PW-1 was re-examined along with PW-2 H.C. Nagpal, and the accused was examined under s.313 CrPC. He denied the allegations and led no defence evidence, but explained that on his return the tax payable was Rs.1,279, which was in excess of the agreed assessment, that treating the matter as finally decided the returns were submitted with slight delay bona fide, and that there was no ill motive. He was acquitted by judgment dated 31.08.1991. The Department appealed.
The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld. To bring home a charge under s.276CC the Department must prove a wilful failure, and mens rea is a necessary ingredient; the presumption in s.278E shifts the burden to the accused to prove that he had no such mental state, but the accused having explained the delay in detail and having deposited the entire tax with penalty, the complainant failed to prove that he had the mens rea to evade payment of tax and so failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In an appeal against acquittal, where two views are plausible, the view favouring the innocence of the accused must be preferred, and no perversity was found in the trial court's findings.
The Court set out s.139(1) and s.276CC and described the proviso as taking care of the genuine assessee who either files belatedly but within the end of the assessment year or has paid substantial amounts by pre-paid taxes (paras 7 and 8). It recorded the introduction of s.278E by the Taxation Laws (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1986 with effect from 10 September 1986, that the court shall presume the existence of the culpable mental state, that the burden shifts to the accused, and that the absence of such a state has to be proved by the accused in defence beyond reasonable doubt (para 9). It then applied Prem Dass v. Income Tax Officer (1999) 5 SCC 241 for the proposition that a wilful attempt to evade is a positive act on the part of the accused which must be proved, and that mens rea is a necessary ingredient which cannot be supplied by presumption alone (paras 10 to 12). On the facts, the respondent had explained the delay in detail and deposited the entire tax with penalty, so the Department had failed to prove mens rea (para 13). The Court also noted the trial court's finding that no notice had been given to the respondent before the complaint was filed (para 14), and applied the settled principle governing appeals against acquittal (para 15).
Therefore, the complainant/ appellant has failed to prove that the respondent had mens rea to evade the payment of tax.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppIt still has to prove the wilfulness. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the Department's appeal against an acquittal for a 28-month delay in filing a return, holding that even with the presumption in s.278E the complainant must bring home the mens rea, that the accused's explanation together with payment of the tax and penalty rebutted it, and that in an appeal against acquittal, where two views are plausible, the view favouring innocence prevails. This was decided by the High Court (Anoop Kumar Dhand J) and bears on section 276CC, section 278E, section 139(1), section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 543/1991 (High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur); marked Reportable. Most s.276CC material is about quashing and discharge; this is what the section looks like after a trial, and it is the answer to the argument that s.278E makes conviction automatic. Two things carry over to a live case. The first is evidentiary: the accused led no defence evidence and still succeeded, because the explanation given in his s.313 CrPC statement, the payment of tax and penalty, and the absence of any notice before the complaint left the prosecution short. The second is procedural: the appellate standard in an appeal against acquittal is not the same as on a first appeal, and that alone can decide the case. Set against this the Karnataka line, which holds that the presumption must be rebutted by material led before the Magistrate and that payment of penalty does not exonerate — the two are not in conflict, because they address different stages, but a practitioner should not read this judgment as licence to leave the defence unproved. If it applies to you, the first step is this: In a s.276CC trial, put the reason for the delay on record in the s.313 CrPC examination and support it with documents; that is what carried the day here even without defence evidence.
The Income Tax Officer, after obtaining sanction from the Commissioner of Income Tax, filed a criminal complaint under s.276CC alleging that the respondent had not submitted his return of income under s.139(1) for AY 1978-79 by 31.07.1978 and had filed it only on 31.12.1980, a delay of more than 28 months. Proceedings under s.271(1) were initiated by notice dated 31.12.1981; the respondent filed no explanation and did not reply to a reminder, and a penalty of Rs.2,200 was imposed by order dated 10.11.1984. At trial before the Special Magistrate (Economic Offences), Rajasthan, Jaipur, the complainant examined PW-1 D.P. Govil, charges were framed, the accused denied them and claimed trial, PW-1 was re-examined along with PW-2 H.C. Nagpal, and the accused was examined under s.313 CrPC. He denied the allegations and led no defence evidence, but explained that on his return the tax payable was Rs.1,279, which was in excess of the agreed assessment, that treating the matter as finally decided the returns were submitted with slight delay bona fide, and that there was no ill motive. He was acquitted by judgment dated 31.08.1991. The Department appealed. The matter was decided on 2024-04-02 by the High Court (Anoop Kumar Dhand J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld. To bring home a charge under s.276CC the Department must prove a wilful failure, and mens rea is a necessary ingredient; the presumption in s.278E shifts the burden to the accused to prove that he had no such mental state, but the accused having explained the delay in detail and having deposited the entire tax with penalty, the complainant failed to prove that he had the mens rea to evade payment of tax and so failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In an appeal against acquittal, where two views are plausible, the view favouring the innocence of the accused must be preferred, and no perversity was found in the trial court's findings.
The Court set out s.139(1) and s.276CC and described the proviso as taking care of the genuine assessee who either files belatedly but within the end of the assessment year or has paid substantial amounts by pre-paid taxes (paras 7 and 8). It recorded the introduction of s.278E by the Taxation Laws (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1986 with effect from 10 September 1986, that the court shall presume the existence of the culpable mental state, that the burden shifts to the accused, and that the absence of such a state has to be proved by the accused in defence beyond reasonable doubt (para 9). It then applied Prem Dass v. Income Tax Officer (1999) 5 SCC 241 for the proposition that a wilful attempt to evade is a positive act on the part of the accused which must be proved, and that mens rea is a necessary ingredient which cannot be supplied by presumption alone (paras 10 to 12). On the facts, the respondent had explained the delay in detail and deposited the entire tax with penalty, so the Department had failed to prove mens rea (para 13). The Court also noted the trial court's finding that no notice had been given to the respondent before the complaint was filed (para 14), and applied the settled principle governing appeals against acquittal (para 15). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Therefore, the complainant/ appellant has failed to prove that the respondent had mens rea to evade the payment of tax." The decision followed or applied Prem Dass v. Income Tax Officer (1999) 5 SCC 241 — applied; Suresh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India (2023) 146 taxmann.com 27 — cited; see the editor note on the court that decided it.
It was decided by the High Court on 2024-04-02 and is reported as S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 543/1991 (High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur); marked Reportable. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 276CC, section 278E, section 139(1), section 271(1), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld. To bring home a charge under s.276CC the Department must prove a wilful failure, and mens rea is a necessary ingredient; the presumption in s.278E shifts the burden to the accused to prove that he had no such mental state, but the accused having explained the delay in detail and having deposited the entire tax with penalty, the complainant failed to prove that he had the mens rea to evade payment of tax and so failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In an appeal against acquittal, where two views are plausible, the view favouring the innocence of the accused must be preferred, and no perversity was found in the trial court's findings. It arises in Prosecution and Evidence & Burden of Proof matters, on section 276CC, section 278E, section 139(1), section 271(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Anoop Kumar Dhand J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Prove the payment of the tax and of the penalty, and the Department's acceptance of the belated return, as part of the material displacing wilfulness. Check whether any notice was issued before the complaint was filed; its absence weighed with the trial court and was noted on appeal. In an appeal against acquittal, lead with the two-views principle before arguing the merits. Do not rely on this judgment's reproduction of s.276CC for the current text — see the editor note; take the section from a current source.
Validity check could not be completed. Validity check could not be completed. No search for an appeal against this judgment or for later treatment was carried out on this pass. Note that the reasoning is directed to the evidentiary position after a full trial and does not conflict with the line of authority holding that the s.278E presumption cannot be displaced at the quashing or discharge stage. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
This report needs several warnings. Para 7 reproduces s.276CC with the pre-2012 clause (i) figure 'exceeds one hundred thousand rupees' while the proviso in the same extract reads 'does not exceed ten thousand rupees'; that mixture cannot be a faithful current text and the extract must not be used to state the section. Para 8 then describes the proviso threshold as 'Rs 3,000', which matches neither the extract nor the assessment year in issue. Para 11 attributes Suresh Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India to the 'Hon'ble Supreme Court of India' while giving a citation that identifies it as a Jharkhand decision. Para 12 introduces Prem Dass as dealing with s.276C(2) but the passage quoted speaks of s.276C generally, and the paragraph then draws a conclusion about s.276CC. Para 10 quotes an unreported Karnataka decision (Crl.R.P. No.329/2019) on the meaning of 'attempt' under s.276C(1) without naming the parties. Finally, note the age of the matter: the acquittal was on 31.08.1991 and the appeal was decided on 02.04.2024, and the offence relates to AY 1978-79. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld. To bring home a charge under s.276CC the Department must prove a wilful failure, and mens rea is a necessary ingredient; the presumption in s.278E shifts the burden to the accused to prove that he had no such mental state, but the accused having explained the delay in detail and having deposited the entire tax with penalty, the complainant failed to prove that he had the mens rea to evade payment of tax and so failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In an appeal against acquittal, where two views are plausible, the view favouring the innocence of the accused must be preferred, and no perversity was found in the trial court's findings.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
A declaration was required by the due date and you filed it late. Is that fatal?
I did not tick s.115BAA in the return and filed Form 10-IC late. Can I still get the concessional rate?
I filed my return late. When is the 276CC offence committed, and is it still a first offence?
I filed my loss return late on my CA's advice and lost the carry-forward. Will the delay be condoned?