TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Penalty for Tax Evasion: Acquittal Doesn't Cancel Penalty!</h1> The court held that acquittal in a prosecution under section 276C of the Income-tax Act does not automatically relieve the assessee of the penalty imposed ... - Issues involved:1. Whether acquittal in a prosecution under section 276C of the Income-tax Act should relieve the assessee of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c).2. Whether mens rea is required for the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) but not for prosecution under section 276C.3. Whether a criminal court's acquittal based on concealment affects the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c).4. Whether issue estoppel arises from a criminal court's verdict in relation to concealment.5. Whether the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability not dependent on wilful concealment.Analysis:1. The judgment clarifies that prosecution under section 276C can proceed even after a penalty under section 271(1)(c) is imposed, and vice versa, unless the penalty proceedings conclusively establish no concealment. Mens rea is not essential for penalty under section 271(1)(c) but is required for prosecution under section 276C.2. The court distinguishes between the objectives of sections 271 and 276C, emphasizing revenue loss remedy under section 271 and punishment for economic offenses under section 276C.3. The judgment highlights that a criminal court's acquittal based on concealment does not automatically nullify the penalty under section 271(1)(c), especially if the evidence considered by the criminal court differs from that before the tax authorities.4. Issue estoppel is discussed, indicating that a criminal court's decision on concealment may not bind the tax authorities, as the standards of proof and objectives differ between criminal and tax proceedings.5. The judgment cites precedents to support the view that a criminal court's acquittal does not erase the tax authorities' findings of concealment, especially if the evidence considered differs between the two proceedings.6. The court upholds the penalty under section 271(1)(c) based on the evidence available to the Assessing Officer at the time of imposition, irrespective of the subsequent criminal court's verdict, as the two proceedings serve different purposes and standards of proof.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
