Wilful tax misstatement and evasion require conscious intent; directors need specific allegations, and process must satisfy Section 202 inquiry.

Prosecution under the Income Tax Act requires proof of a wilful false statement or a conscious attempt to evade tax; mere delay in payment, where liability is disclosed and ultimately discharged, does not by itself amount to criminal evasion. Criminal liability of directors cannot be fastened automatically on the basis of the inclusive definition of principal officer; specific role-based allegations and supporting material are necessary for each accused. Cognizance and summons must reflect judicial application of mind, and where an accused resides outside jurisdiction, Section 202 inquiry is mandatory before process is issued. On these principles, the complaint was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the returns contained a wilful misstatement attracting prosecution under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (ii) whether delayed payment of income tax amounted to evasion under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (iii) whether all directors could be prosecuted merely on the basis of the inclusive definition of principal officer under Section 2(35) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (iv) whether the order taking cognizance and issuing summons was valid, including compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): whether the returns contained a wilful misstatement attracting prosecution under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Analysis: For prosecution under Section 277, the statement must be shown to be false and wilful, made with a dishonest or mala fide intent. The factual setting showed that the assessee had filed returns on the basis of the accrual system, had disclosed tax liability, and had made substantial payments, but the software required entry of full payment details for uploading. The statement of payment was therefore treated as one made under compulsion of the system and not as a deliberate falsehood.

Conclusion: There was no wilful misstatement, and prosecution under Section 277 could not be sustained against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether delayed payment of income tax amounted to evasion under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Analysis: Delayed payment, by itself, was distinguished from evasion. The liability had been acknowledged in the returns and tax had ultimately been paid, though belatedly and after financial difficulty. The Court treated such delay as a matter that could attract interest or penalty, but not criminal evasion in the absence of material showing a conscious attempt to avoid tax.

Conclusion: Delayed payment of income tax did not amount to evasion under Section 276C(2).

Issue (iii): whether all directors could be prosecuted merely on the basis of the inclusive definition of principal officer under Section 2(35) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Analysis: Criminal prosecution of directors required specific allegations showing the role of each accused and the manner in which each was responsible for the offence. A mere omnibus reference to directors or reliance on the definition of principal officer was held insufficient to fasten criminal liability. In the absence of a substantive offence against the company on the facts found, automatic prosecution of all directors could not stand.

Conclusion: All directors could not be automatically prosecuted without specific allegations and material against each of them.

Issue (iv): whether the order taking cognizance and issuing summons was valid, including compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Analysis: The order of cognizance was found to be mechanical and did not disclose a proper judicial application of mind to the materials or to each accused. Further, where one accused resided beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, an inquiry under Section 202 was mandatory before issuance of process. The summons issued without such inquiry were therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The cognizance order and issuance of summons were invalid, and the proceedings could not be maintained.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution was held unsustainable on merits and on procedure, and the complaints were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: For prosecution under Sections 276C(2) and 277 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the department must show a wilful false statement or conscious attempt to evade tax, and criminal process against directors requires specific role-based allegations as well as a valid cognizance order satisfying the requirement of judicial application of mind and, where applicable, Section 202 inquiry.

---