Section 279

Section 279 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 279, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Vijay Krishnaswami v DDIT (Investigation) Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The Settlement Commission accepted my disclosure. Can the department still prosecute me for evasion?
  No. Every order of settlement is conclusive under s.245-I, so where the Commission has recorded full and true disclosure the factual foundation for a wilful attempt to evade under s.276C(1) is gone and continuing the prosecution is an abuse of process. The prosecution was quashed and costs of Rs. 2,00,000 were imposed on the Revenue.
• Madhumilan Syntex Ltd v Union of India Supreme CourtHelps department
  I deposited the TDS late but with interest. Can the company and its directors still be prosecuted?
  Yes. The offence under s.276B is complete once deducted tax is not credited to the Government within the prescribed time; depositing it later with interest is a civil consequence and does not wipe out the default. Directors identified as principal officers under s.2(35) were properly arrayed with the company under s.278B.
• P. Jayappan v ITO Supreme CourtHelps department
  The complaint under s.276C and s.277 was filed while my reassessment is still running. Is it premature?
  No. There is no provision that bars a prosecution until reassessment proceedings are completed. The criminal court judges the case on the evidence before it, and an expectation of success in an appeal or reference does not stand in the way of the complaint being instituted.
• B. Mohammad Iqbal v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The section 276CC complaint against me was filed by an Assistant Commissioner although my case was with the Income-tax Officer, and no assessment was ever made on the capital gain the complaint alleges. Can that prosecution stand?
  No, on this decision. The Madras High Court quashed the complaint. Only the officer on whom jurisdiction has been conferred by directions or orders is the Assessing Officer; here the show cause notice came from the Income-tax Officer of the ward while the complaint was laid by the Assistant Commissioner, with no transfer under section 127 and no intimation under section 129, so the sanction under section 279 had been given without any application of mind to the question of jurisdiction. Separately, no regular assessment had ever been made, so the tax threshold in the proviso to section 276CC could not be tested and the prosecution was premature.
• Vipul Aggarwal v ITO High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The sanction for prosecution names the company as the assessee. Can the complaint proceed against me as its director?
  No. The Delhi High Court quashed the complaint against the director because the sanction placed on record identified only the company; there was no sanction against him, whether as a person, as a director, or as someone responsible for the conduct of the company's business. Without that sanction the department cannot proceed against him for the s.276CC offence.
• Jai Singh Goel v CCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  The Commissioner has refused to compound my s.276CC offence. Can I take that refusal to the High Court?
  Yes. The Delhi High Court set aside a rejection of a compounding application for offences under s.276CC read with s.278E. The two reasons given for the refusal — that the application was out of time, and that the applicant stood convicted — had both fallen away, the first because the Board had relaxed the time limit and the second because the conviction had been set aside on appeal. The Court sent the application back to be considered on its merits.

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.