VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawConcepts › What it costs to compound a s.276B prosecution

What it costs to compound a s.276B prosecution

We paid the TDS late and a prosecution is on the table. What does compounding actually cost?

We paid the TDS late and a prosecution is on the table. What does compounding actually cost?

Under the Guidelines for Compounding of Offences under the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 17 October 2024, the compounding charge for a s.276B or s.276BB offence is 1.5% per month or part of a month of the tax in default, for the period from the date of deduction to the date of deposit, computed the way interest under s.201(1A)(ii) is computed, and it cannot exceed the TDS amount in default. That single rate replaced the earlier 2%, 3% and 5% rates, and interest on delayed payment of the compounding charge has been abolished. Everything else due on the offence — tax, interest including s.220 interest, and penalty — has to be paid first.

This is an explainer, not a judgment. It states the law in our own words, which is exactly why it needs checking. Everything below was written from the sources listed at the foot of this page, and no chartered accountant has yet signed it off. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply or an appeal.

**The power.** Section 279(2): "Any offence under this Chapter may, either before or after the institution of proceedings, be compounded by the Chief Commissioner or a Director General." The guidelines are the department's own rules for exercising that power. The current set is F. No. 285/08/2014-IT(Inv.V)/163 dated 17 October 2024, which supersedes the guidelines of 2008, 2014, 2019 and 2022 and applies to pending applications as well as new ones. The Board issued FAQs on them in 2025.

**The charge.** Annexure 4 to the guidelines fixes the compounding charge for ss.276B and 276BB at "1.5 % per month or part of a month of the amount of tax in default for the default period. The period of default shall be calculated from the date of deduction to the date of deposit of tax deducted at source, as is done in respect of calculating interest under section 201(1A) (ii) of the Act. The compounding charge shall not exceed the TDS amount in default."

Three things follow. First, the base is the tax in default, not the total TDS for the year and not the demand. Second, the period is the same period on which s.201(1A)(ii) interest has already been computed — so the arithmetic is already in the department's own order, and the compounding charge is the same shape as the interest already paid. Third, the cap: however long the delay, the charge stops at 100% of the tax in default.

**The rate change.** The 2024 revision reduced "multiple rates of 2%, 3% and 5%" to "single rate of 1.5% per month" for TDS defaults, and abolished "interest chargeable on delayed payment of compounding charges". It also removed "the existing time limit for filing application viz 36 months from the date of filing of complaint" and, importantly for this offence, extended compounding to offences under ss.275A and 276B, which the earlier guidelines had put out of reach.

**What has to be paid before the charge.** The guidelines require that "All outstanding tax, interest (including interest u/s 220 of the Act), penalty and any other sum due, relating to the offence(s)" be paid. In a late-deposit case that means the TDS itself, the s.201(1A) interest, any s.234E fee and any penalty already levied. The compounding charge sits on top of all of it.

**Who decides, and on what footing.** "The jurisdictional Pr. CCIT / CCIT / Pr. DGIT / DGIT is the Competent Authority for compounding of offences." And it is not an entitlement: "compounding is not a matter of right and applications may be rejected by the Competent Authority in exceptional cases, on recording in writing, reasons such as if the applicant is a habitual offender or the gravity of the offence." A prosecution instituted under the Indian Penal Code cannot be compounded under these guidelines.

**Timing.** An application may now be made suo motu at any time after the offence is committed, whether or not it has come to the department's notice, and either before or after proceedings are instituted. The 36-month outer limit is gone. That changes the tactical calculation: the application no longer has to be rushed to beat a clock, and it can be filed before a complaint is launched.

**Working the commercial comparison.** The comparison a client actually wants is compounding charge against the cost of defending a prosecution. On a Rs 10 lakh default deposited eleven months late, 1.5% per month for eleven months is Rs 1.65 lakh, against a s.201(1A)(ii) interest liability computed on the same period and already paid. The cap means that even a default carried for six years costs no more than the tax itself. Against that sits the criminal record risk to the principal officer and the directors under s.278B, the presumption of culpable mental state under s.278E, and years of magistrate-court attendance.

Why it matters

The decision to compound is a commercial one and it needs a number. Until the 2024 guidelines the number was uncertain — three different rates, an interest charge on delay in paying the charge, and s.276B excluded from compounding altogether under some of the earlier guidance. The current position gives a single computation the client can be shown on one page, and the removal of the 36-month limit means the option does not expire while the prosecution decision is being taken.

What to do

Where people go wrong

Unsettled, or not pinned down. I could not obtain the guidelines from incometaxindia.gov.in. The department's own compounding page carries an introductory paragraph and nothing else, and the circular PDF links on the PIB release returned 404. The full text quoted here, including Annexure 4, was read on TaxGuru, which reproduces the guidelines; the reduction to a single 1.5% rate and the abolition of interest on delayed payment are independently confirmed by the PIB release. The FAQs (Circular No. 4/2025) could not be fetched, so their clarifications on the charge, on the mode of payment and on time limits are not covered. Nothing here covers the charge payable by a co-accused, whether a charge already paid is refundable if the application is rejected, or the writ remedy against a rejection. The worked figures in the last paragraph are arithmetic on the stated rate, not something any source computes.

Authorities on these sections

Judgments in this library that turn on the same provisions.

Where this came from

Every page in this library links to what it was written from, so you can check it rather than take our word for it.