Across the globe, there are two predominant systems of law which govern the way state and judicial forums tackle crimes. They are the inquisitorial system and the adversarial system. The prevalent system in India for dealing with offences is the adversarial system. In this system, two advocates represent their parties' positions before an impartial judge, who attempts to determine the truth of the case. In India, as in other common law countries where this system exists, it is built on an extensive set of provisions incorporated in statutory laws of evidence and procedure. Inherent to the adversarial system are the principles of 'innocent until proven guilty', 'non-obligation to inculpate oneself' and 'double jeopardy'. Simultaneously, the very nature of the system has been built on incentives in the form of plea bargaining and compounding (settlement by paying money) by the accused to expedite the course of justice and mitigate expenditure and time spent in prosecuting the case.
In India, income tax is a key source of funds that our government utilizes to fund its activities and serve the public. The Income Tax Department empowered by the Income Tax Act 1961, Income Tax Rules 1962, Notifications and Circulars issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Annual Finance Acts and Judicial pronouncements by Supreme Court and High Courts, is the biggest revenue mobilizer for the Government. The total tax revenues of the Central Government increased from INR 1392.26 billion in 1997-98 to INR 5889.09 billion in 2007-08. The Central Government has been empowered by Entry 82 of the Union List of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India to levy tax on all income other than agricultural income (subject to Section 10(1)).
The Government of India imposes tax on the income of all persons including individuals, Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs), companies, firms, association of persons, body of individuals, local authority and any other artificial judicial person. Levy of tax is separate on each of the persons. The levy is governed by the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. The Indian Income Tax Department is governed by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and is part of the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India.
Due to the importance this source of taxation plays in the governance of our country, the legislature has incorporated provisions thereby defining certain acts as offences under the Income Tax Act. Sections 275A to 280 provides for various types of offences under which the Income Tax Department can prosecute an assesses/defaulter in the Court of Law. The primary objective of the Act is to collect tax and generate revenue for the State, and not criminalize and prosecute activities there are inherent safety riders incorporated in the Act, which must be satisfied before prosecution of these offences can be initiated by courts. For instance, prosecution can be launched only at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax or Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or the Appropriate Authority who must state his reasons for initiating so. As is inherent in the adversarial system, and more so as the legislative intent was to ensure prosecution of offences as the last resort, all these offences are compoundable, as per guidelines published by the CBDT.
As such, the following acts are designated as offences under the Central Act.
The Act, has by virtue of section 278E, in distinction of the inherent principles of the adversarial system of criminal law, has shifted the burden of proof on the accused. As such, the accused would be guilty until he proves himself to be innocent for offences committed under this act. Among these aforementioned offences, the CBDT guidelines have brought out a distinction between technical and non-technical offences. As such, an act of failure to pay to the credit of the central government, the tax deducted at source and failure to pay tax collected at source, are technical offences. All the other offences in the Chapter are regarded non-technical. This distinction bears importance as in case of technical offences the same can be compounded or settled even prior to filing of complaint! This clearly indicates the focus of the CBDT is to generate revenue and not prosecute minor lapses by such taxpaying entities.
Compounding in all cases results in money being paid which is calculated as per the CBDT circulars. In fact, in case of non-technical offences, if the case is at the stage prosecution, compounding fees also includes a fee for prosecution establishment
As regards compounding of all offenses, technical and non-technical, the same are governed by CBDT's F.No. 285/161/90-IT(Inv.) dated 30th September 1994 and the amendment to the same vide F.No. 285/26/2002-IT(Inv.) dated 29th July 2003. As such to compound technical offenses, technical and non-technical, the following conditions are necessary.
As mentioned before, technical offences stand on a different footing from non-technical or substantive ones as is obvious from the following guidelines issued:
A non-technical offence can be compounded with the approval of the Board, subject to satisfaction of the following conditions cumulatively, in addition to conditions mentioned above
The composition fees for compounding of various offences are as under:
Sec. 276: - Rs. 2/- for every day during which the default continues.
Sec. 276B: - 2% per month of the amount of tax in default.
Sec. 276BB: - 2% per month of the amount of tax in default.
Sec. 276C (1): - 50% of the tax amount sought to be evaded
Sec. 276C (2): - 2% per month of the amount of tax the payment of which is sought to be evaded.
Sec 276CC: - 2% per month of the assessed tax.
Sec 277: - 50% of the tax amount sought to be evaded
No composition fee is prescribed for other offences. However, it has been provided that the Board can consider the same on a case-to-case basis. The compounding charges shall also include prosecution establishment expenses which will be charged @ 10% of the composition fee subject to a maximum of INR 50,000/-.
Thus, compounding of an offence could only be made if a written request by way of an application is made by an assessee, bringing out the following points.
As such, one can see that the Revenue has focused and modified its guidelines to attract and induce more defaulters and assesses to compound the offenses and the offences under the Act on today's date only exist to induce assesses to pay money instead of suffering incarceration. Though these offences exist in the statute, the conviction rate for the same unearths the underlying truth that the same are mere tools empowering the revenue to threaten and extort a taxpayer. The act empowers and grants sweeping powers to the CIT and CIT(A) regarding compounding and as opposed to the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 there is no judicial supervision involved in compounding of the offences under it. By virtue of 278E, defences based on men’s reason or intent which are part and parcel of every criminal offence, have been taken away thereby in fact making them statutory offenses. The same, though, supported by the will of the legislature is contradictory to the principles of criminal jurisprudence, as the period of incarceration for some of the offences goes till a maximum period of 7 years in some cases, unlike most statutory offences.Copyright 2022 – Helpline Law
FIR stands for ‘First Information Report.’ A First Information Report, as the name suggests, is
A cheque bounce is when an unpaid cheque is returned back by the bank, also known as dishono
One of the biggest social stigmas attached to a society is that of child abuse. A child can be a
In daily life, we always hear the word 'Summon', for instance, the Enforcement Directorate
Rape and IPC: Rape and sexual crimes against any gender have long since been considered a crime unde
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (old Act) came into force in 1986 to protect the interests of
Gratuity is that part of the salary of an Employee which he receives from his/her employ
According to our present Juvenile Justice System, when a minor commits a crime that is not naturally