Section 475 Removal, concealment, transfer or delivery of property to prevent tax recovery.

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

This text is a penal provision (Clause/Section 475) concerning acts done to prevent tax recovery by frustrating execution of a recovery certificate. It matters to taxpayers, their advisers, and enforcement authorities because it criminalises fraudulent disposition or concealment of property intended to defeat tax recovery. The Bill text is the "Old Version"; the enacted section modifies the instrument reference-effective date or commencement is Not stated in the document.

Background & Scope

Statutory hooks: Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Clause 475-Old Version) and Income-tax Act, 2025 (Section 475-enacted). The provision is placed under the heading "OFFENCES AND PROSECUTION" in both texts. Coverage: persons who "fraudulently remove, conceal, transfer or deliver" any property or any interest therein with the specific intent to prevent that property or interest from being taken in execution of a certificate. Definitions or expanded explanations of terms such as "fraudulently", "certificate as prescribed", or "certificate drawn u/s 413" are Not stated in the document.

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

Clause 475 (Bill, Old Version) reads: "Whoever, fraudulently removes, conceals, transfers or delivers to any person, any property or any interest therein, with the intent to prevent such property or interest from being taken in execution of a certificate as prescribed, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine." The enacted Section 475 uses near-identical language but substitutes "a certificate drawn u/s 413" for "a certificate as prescribed." Coverage extends to any person who commits any of the listed acts in relation to any property or interest therein, provided the acts are done fraudulently and with the specified preventive intent.

Interpretation

Legislative intent as expressed in the text: to create a specific offence addressing deliberate acts to prevent tax authorities from executing a recovery certificate. The explicit criminalisation of removal, concealment, transfer or delivery, tied to fraudulent conduct and intent to obstruct execution, indicates an intent to target deliberate evasion of enforcement rather than innocent or accidental disposition. The Bill's phrase "as prescribed" suggests an original intention to allow prescription (by rules or subordinate legislation) of the form or nature of the certificate; the enacted substitution of "section 413" suggests a legislative choice to anchor the offence to an express statutory instrument, reducing reliance on delegated prescription. Beyond this, legislative purpose and broader intent are Not stated in the document.

Exceptions/Provisos

No exceptions, provisos, thresholds, or de minimis carve-outs are included in the clause as presented. Matters such as bona fide transfers for value, privileged dispositions, insolvency processes, or transactions under court direction are Not stated in the document.

Illustrations

• Example 1: A taxpayer, upon receiving notice of a recovery certificate, fraudulently transfers legal title of immovable property to a relative without consideration, intending that the property not be available for execution. Under the provision, such transfer could fall within the offence because it is a fraudulent transfer done with intent to prevent execution of the certificate.
• Example 2: A person, knowing a certificate u/s 413 (enacted text) exists against them, conceals a movable asset (e.g., machinery) on another premises to frustrate seizure. This could constitute the offence if the concealment is fraudulent and intended to prevent execution.
• Example 3: A taxpayer sells shares to a third party at market value shortly before a certificate is presented for execution; whether this constitutes the offence depends on evidence of fraud and intent to prevent execution. The provision requires "fraudulently" and "with the intent"-mere timing of a sale is Not stated in the document as automatically constituting the offence.

Interplay

Document 1 specifically references "section 413" as the statutory source of the certificate against which execution would be frustrated. Any interaction between Clause/Section 475 and other provisions, rules, notifications, or civil remedies is Not stated in the document. The Bill's use of "as prescribed" implies potential interplay with delegated rules prescribing the certificate's form, but the enacted text removes that delegation in favour of a direct cross-reference.

Differences between the two provisions and practical impact of each change

• Wording on execution instrument:

  Document 1 (Section 475, Income-tax Act, 2025): refers to "a certificate drawn u/s 413". Document 2 (Clause 475, Income Tax Bill, 2025): refers to "a certificate as prescribed."

  Practical impact: The enacted provision in Document 1 ties the offence to a specific statutory source (section 413), which narrows and clarifies the precise execution instrument whose execution the offender intends to frustrate. The Bill's earlier wording "as prescribed" is broader and potentially delegates definitional detail to subordinate legislation; replacing that phrase with a direct reference to section 413 reduces delegation and uncertainty about the qualifying certificate.

• Paraphrase and otherwise identical elements:

  Both texts use materially identical core language regarding the actus reus ("removes, conceals, transfers or delivers"), mens rea ("fraudulently" and "with the intent to prevent"), and punishment (rigorous imprisonment up to two years and fine). The explanatory note in Document 2 ("Clause 475 of the Bill seeks to provide for punishment...") appears only in the Bill document and is absent from the statutory text in Document 1.

  Practical impact: Substantive criminal exposure and penalties remain the same between the Bill and enacted section; the primary substantive change is the specific reference to section 413 in the enacted text and removal of the Bill's explanatory sentence from the statute.

Practical Implications

• Compliance and risk areas: Parties subject to recovery proceedings must be aware that deliberate acts-removal, concealment, transfer or delivery-undertaken fraudulently with intent to defeat execution expose them to criminal prosecution with up to two years' rigorous imprisonment and fine. The specific attachment to "a certificate drawn u/s 413" (enacted text) narrows the triggering instrument and clarifies prosecutorial focus.
• Record-keeping/evidence: Because the offence requires proof of fraud and specific intent to prevent execution, records that document bona fide intent for transactions (e.g., consideration paid, contemporaneous agreements, arms-length valuations, communications) are relevant. The statute itself does not list evidentiary standards or required records; such guidance is Not stated in the document.

Key Takeaways

• The clause criminalises fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer or delivery of property intended to prevent execution of a recovery certificate.
• Penalty exposure is rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine-consistent across the Bill and enacted text.
• The principal drafting change between the Bill (old) and enacted section is the replacement of "a certificate as prescribed" with "a certificate drawn u/s 413", shifting from delegated prescription to a direct statutory cross-reference.
• The provision requires both fraudulent conduct and specific intent to prevent execution; mere timing of disposition without fraudulent intent is not described as sufficient in the text.
• No exceptions, definitions of "fraudulently", or procedural provisions are contained in the clause; these matters are Not stated in the document.
• Practical compliance suggests maintaining contemporaneous documentation of dealings in property once recovery proceedings are anticipated, although the statute itself does not prescribe records or procedures.

---

Full Text:

Section 475 Removal, concealment, transfer or delivery of property to prevent tax recovery.

Fraudulent disposition of property to frustrate tax execution now criminalised, tied specifically to a certificate drawn under section 413. The offence criminalises anyone who fraudulently removes, conceals, transfers or delivers any property or interest therein with intent to prevent such property or interest from being taken in execution of a certificate drawn u/s 413; punishment is rigorous imprisonment up to two years and a fine. The enacted text replaces the Bill's broader 'as prescribed' formulation with a direct reference to section 413, clarifying the instrument whose execution the offence seeks to frustrate. The clause contains no exceptions, definitions of 'fraudulently,' or evidentiary rules.