Section 279(1A) — the law in short
What the courts have decided on section 279(1A), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Prem Dass v ITO
Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
The Tribunal cancelled my concealment penalty, but the prosecution under section 276C is still running. Does the penalty finding help me in the criminal court?
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. Section 276C needs a wilful attempt to evade, which is a positive act that must be proved, and section 277 needs mens rea - that the person knew or believed the verification to be false, or did not believe it true. Neither can be made out from the presumption in section 132(4A) about seized books. The Court also held that the Tribunal's finding that this was a difference of opinion on estimates, not concealment, and the reduction of the penalty, could not be lost sight of, given the legislative intent in section 279(1A).
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.