Section 488 Offences by Hindu undivided family.

Income-tax Act, 2025

At a Glance

These texts are two versions of Clause/Section 488 dealing with offences by a Hindu undivided family (HUF) under the Income-tax enactment for 2025. They set out the circumstances in which the Karta and members of an HUF are to be treated as guilty of offences committed by the HUF. The provisions affect taxpayers (HUFs and their members) and enforcement authorities. The New/Act 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", "connivance", "neglect" or "due diligence"). Not stated in the document.

Statutory Provision Mode

Text & Scope

Both documents contain three sub-sections with substantially similar structure:

• Sub-section (1): Where an offence under the Act has been committed by a HUF, the Karta shall be deemed guilty and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
• Sub-section (2): The Karta will not be liable to punishment if he proves the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
• Sub-section (3): Holds certain members also guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to neglect on the part of, such member.

Scope: The provision applies when an offence under the Income-tax Act is committed by an HUF; it operates by deeming individual culpability (Karta and certain members) based on the state of knowledge, consent, connivance or neglect. The Act version modifies the introductory limitation clause to sub-section (3) compared to the Bill version (see "Differences" below).

Interpretation

The text embodies the legislative intent to: (a) attach personal criminal liability to the managerial head of an HUF (Karta) for offences committed by the HUF; (b) provide a defence for the Karta based on absence of knowledge or due diligence; and (c) subject members to liability where wrongdoing is attributable to their consent, 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 proof beyond the express text, or who bears the legal burden of proof (beyond the phrase "he proves" which indicates a burden on the Karta).

Illustrations

• Example 1: An HUF files returns that contain material misstatements leading to an offence under the Act. Under sub-section (1), the Karta is deemed guilty and liable to prosecution unless he proves lack of knowledge or due diligence (sub-section (2)).
• Example 2: An HUF commits an offence through fraudulent concealment and it is established that a specific coparcener consented to the concealment. Under sub-section (3) that member shall also be deemed guilty and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
• Example 3: An HUF commits an offence and the prosecution shows it resulted from a member's neglect in maintaining required records. That member is liable under sub-section (3) as the offence is "attributable to any neglect" on their part.

Interplay

The text does not reference other Rules, Notifications or Circulars. Not stated in the document: any cross-references to procedural sections (for investigation, trial, prosecution or appeal), to standards of proof, to the operation of corporate or vicarious liability principles elsewhere in the Act, or to mitigation/penalty mechanisms. The documents are silent on interplay with civil tax assessments or how criminal proceedings interact with tax liability proceedings. Not stated in the document.

Differences Between the Two Provisions and Practical Impact

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 expressed inline (consent or connivance, or attributable to neglect).
Scope of member liability vis-`a-vis Karta defence	Member liability introduced as notwithstanding sub-section (1) only.	Member liability introduced as notwithstanding sub-sections (1) and (2), i.e., irrespective of Karta's available defences.

Practical impact:

• The Act version expressly makes member liability independent of the Karta's ability to escape liability under sub-section (2). Concretely, even if the Karta proves absence of knowledge or due diligence, members may still be prosecuted and punished if their own consent, connivance or neglect is proved. The Bill version was arguably narrower in wording, since it only expressly stated member liability irrespective of sub-section (1); the new wording removes any ambiguity that a Karta's successful defence might limit prosecution of members.
• The Act version strengthens enforcement reach against individual members: prosecuting authorities can proceed against members despite a Karta's exculpatory proof. This reduces the risk for prosecutors that a Karta's due diligence defence might act as a shield for culpable members.
• From a defence standpoint, the drafting shift places greater emphasis on separate, individualised proofs: members must defend themselves on the basis that there was no consent/connivance or the offence was not attributable to their neglect. Similarly, the Karta retains a specific defence; but the amended 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 evidence demonstrating (a) actions taken by the Karta to exercise due diligence; and (b) lack of consent, connivance or neglect by members. Not stated in the document: specific forms, durations or standards for such records, but the statutory structure highlights that evidence relevant to "knowledge", "due diligence", "consent", "connivance" and "neglect" will be material to criminal proceedings.

Key Takeaways

• The provision deems the Karta guilty for offences committed by an HUF subject to a defence of absence of knowledge or exercise of due diligence.
• Members of an HUF are separately liable if the offence is committed with their consent, connivance or attributable to their neglect.
• The Act version clarifies that member liability operates irrespective of both sub-section (1) and the Karta's defence under sub-section (2).
• The change narrows any potential interpretive gap and strengthens prosecutorial capacity to pursue individual members notwithstanding a Karta's exculpatory proof.
• The statute does not define key terms (e.g., "due diligence", "neglect", "consent", "connivance") nor specify procedural or evidentiary standards in this text.
• Maintaining contemporaneous records evidencing compliance steps and internal controls will be important, as the statutory scheme turns on proofs of knowledge, due diligence, consent, connivance and neglect.
• The amendment is primarily clarificatory: it confirms that the Karta's successful defence does not immunise culpable members.

---

Full Text:

Section 488 Offences by Hindu undivided family.

Karta liability and member culpability: members can be prosecuted regardless of Karta's due diligence defence under the revised provision. The provision deems the Karta guilty for offences committed by an HUF unless he proves absence of knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence; members are separately liable if the offence was committed with their consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, and the Act clarifies that such member liability applies irrespective of both the Karta's deemed guilt and his due-diligence defence.