Comparison of section 488 "Offences by Hindu undivided family." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t version (titled "Section 488 of Income-tax Act, 2025") differs from the Old/Bill version ("Clause 488 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version") in the drafting of sub-section (3); effective date or enactment date is Not stated in the document. Background & Scope Statutory hooks: Offences and Prosecution provisions under the Income-tax enactment for 2025. The provision addresses criminal or penal liability where an offence under the Act is committed by a Hindu undivided family. The text defines no separate new terms or definitions; it operates by deeming particular persons within the HUF structure to be guilty in specified circumstances. The document does not provide further statutory definitions (for example, of "offence", "consent", "co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....connivance or neglect. The drafting treats HUF as an entity whose offences attract individual attribution to persons who control or contribute to the offence. The inclusion of an express defence for the Karta signals an intention to allow evidentiary escape where the Karta exercised reasonable steps to prevent the offence. Exceptions/Provisos Sub-section (2) is an express proviso for the Karta: he is not liable to punishment if he proves either (i) the offence was committed without his knowledge, or (ii) he had exercised all due diligence to prevent commission of the offence. The provision does not set out standards for "due diligence", nor does it provide procedural rules for proof. Not stated in the document: standards or burden of proo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t Topic Old Version (Clause 488, Bill) New Version (Section 488, Act) Introductory wording to sub-section (3) Begins: "Irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence ... a member ... shall also be deemed to be guilty ... if it is proved that - (a) ...; or (b) ..." Begins: "Irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2), where an offence ... and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any member ... such member shall also be deemed to be guilty ..." Ordering and form of culpability grounds Two limbs presented as sub-clauses (a) consent/connivance; (b) attributable to neglect. Same two limbs e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....introductory clause clarifies that the Karta's defence does not negate member liability. * No other substantive change to the ingredients of liability (consent, connivance, neglect) is evident; the practical legal consequence is primarily clarificatory and emphasises independent culpability of members. Practical Implications * Compliance and risk areas grounded in the provision: HUFs should recognise that managerial head (Karta) can be prosecuted for HUF offences; moreover, individual members can also be prosecuted where their consent/connivance or neglect is shown, regardless of whether the Karta can successfully establish lack of knowledge or due diligence. * Record-keeping/evidence: The text implies the utility of documentary ....