Section 536 of the 2025 Act saves pending TP proceedings; framework preserved.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Section 275A criminalises contravention of orders issued under section 132 in the course of search and seizure proceedings. Specifically, contravention of an order under section 132(1) (search order), section 132(3) (prohibitory order on assets / documents), or section 132(8A) (extension of prohibitory orders) attracts the offence. Punishment: rigorous imprisonment up to 2 years + fine.
The provision protects the integrity of the search-and-seizure framework. Common violations: removing items from search-locked premises, breaking seals, altering / destroying documents under prohibitory order, transferring assets covered by section 132(3) restraint. Mens rea — wilful contravention — required.
Practitioner reality — section 275A prosecution is rare relative to TDS / evasion offences. It serves primarily as a deterrent against active obstruction. The 2025 Act preserves the framework.
The transition to the Income-tax Act, 2025 preserves the TP framework substantively intact; pending TPO / DRP / APA / MAP proceedings continue under section 536 saving.
▸ Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 ; (2000) 1 SCR 1 (Supreme Court)
Facts. A municipal levy was challenged on the ground that the charging provision did not clearly specify the rate, the persons charged, and the measure of tax.
Issue. Whether a tax can be imposed in the absence of a clear, unambiguous charging provision identifying the subject, measure, rate, and incidence.
HELD. Article 265 demands that tax be levied only by clear authority of law. The four components — taxable event, person, rate, and measure — must be clearly discernible from the charging provision; ambiguity is fatal to the levy.
“The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions, particularly when the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose other than what is given expression to.”
Relevance. Foundational authority on the rigour required of charging sections — underpins arguments that ambiguous deeming fictions, surcharge formulas, and rate prescriptions must be strictly construed.
▸ Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 ; (2010) 11 SCC 762 (Supreme Court)
Facts. The assessee claimed deduction of interest on borrowings used for investment in shares yielding tax-free dividend. The deduction was disallowed under section 14A. The Department levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment / inaccurate particulars.
Issue. Whether a mere disallowance of a deduction — without any falsehood in the particulars furnished — attracts penalty under section 271(1)(c).
HELD. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not attracted merely because a claim for deduction is disallowed. The assessee's claim must be shown to be false, frivolous, or made without bona fides; mere unsustainability does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
“A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to inaccurate particulars.”
Relevance. Cornerstone authority for resisting penalty under section 271(1)(c) / section 270A — applies to disallowed deductions, transfer-pricing adjustments, head-of-income re-characterisations where a bona-fide claim was made.
▸ Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (2007) 291 ITR 519 ; (2007) 6 SCC 329 (Supreme Court)
Facts. The assessee was visited with section 271(1)(c) penalty without the AO specifying which limb — concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars — was being invoked; the show-cause notice merely reproduced the statutory language without striking off inapplicable limbs.
Issue. Whether a section 271(1)(c) penalty levied without specifying the limb in the notice is sustainable.
HELD. The two limbs of section 271(1)(c) — concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars — are distinct charges with different scopes. The notice must specify which limb is invoked; failure renders the penalty unsustainable as a denial of natural justice.
“Concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are different. Although it may appear that both… imply the same meaning, they are different in nature. The notice must convey to the assessee the specific charge.”
Relevance. Anchor for striking down defective penalty notices — extended in SSA Emerald Meadows (Karnataka) and routinely applied across penalty matters.
Facts. The Department sought to apply a surcharge provision retrospectively to block-period assessments. The assessee contended that the amendment was substantive and could not have retrospective operation absent express legislative direction.
Issue. Whether amendments to taxing statutes operate prospectively unless the legislature has expressly or by necessary implication conferred retrospective effect.
HELD. The Constitution Bench reaffirmed the general rule against retrospectivity of taxing statutes. A taxing provision must be construed prospectively unless the language compels otherwise; mere insertion or substitution by amendment is not sufficient to deny vested rights.
“Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation.”
Relevance. Anchor authority for any argument that an amendment to a charging or computational provision must apply only from the AY notified — useful in transitional disputes around FA 2025 and the 1961 → 2025 changeover.
▸ Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta (1961) 41 ITR 191 ; AIR 1961 SC 372 (Supreme Court — Constitution Bench)
Facts. The assessee challenged a section 34 reassessment notice on the ground that the ITO had no jurisdictional foundation to reopen; the Revenue contended that the writ jurisdiction was ousted by the statutory appeals scheme.
Issue. Whether the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is ousted by the existence of a statutory remedy where the reassessment notice itself lacks jurisdictional foundation.
HELD. Existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not oust Article 226 jurisdiction where the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction. The burden is on the assessee to disclose all primary facts; the duty to draw inferences rests with the assessing officer.
“The duty of the assessee in every case is to disclose fully and truly all primary facts. Once all primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure.”
Relevance. Foundational on the boundary between assessee's disclosure duty and the ITO's investigative duty — supports challenges to s. 147/148 (1961) / s. 281 (2025) reassessments on jurisdictional grounds.
CBDT CIRCULARS — ECOSYSTEM
▸ CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955 dated 11 April 1955
Subject. Duty of officers to assist assessees in claiming and securing relief
Substance. Foundational circular directing that the AO should not exploit assessee ignorance to deny legitimate reliefs; officer is required to draw attention to refunds or reliefs to which the assessee is entitled. The circular has been judicially noted in several appellate decisions and remains operative for first-appellate practice.
Substance. Explained the FA 1987 / FA 1989 amendments unifying the previous year with the financial year preceding the AY, including transitional provisions for assessees with different accounting years. Useful in any controversy on the timing of accrual / chargeability for early post-1989 AYs.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11 February 2014
Subject. Section 14A — dis-allowance even where no exempt income earned (since modulated)
Substance. Initially directed AOs to apply Rule 8D disallowance under section 14A even where no exempt income was earned in the year; subsequently modulated by Cheminvest (Del HC) and Maxopp (SC). FA 2022 amendment to section 14A re-asserted the position but remains under litigation.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2019 dated 20 March 2019
Subject. Withdrawal of low-tax-effect appeals — monetary thresholds
Substance. Revised monetary thresholds for departmental appeals — ITAT (Rs 50L), HC (Rs 1 Cr), SC (Rs 2 Cr); subsequently further revised. Operates as a non-statutory limitation on the Revenue's appellate engagement, binding under section 119.
Substance. Procedural guidance for AOs handling transitional reassessment notices for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18 affected by Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Sets out the form of section 148A inquiry, time-bar calculation under TOLA, and JAO/FAO jurisdiction in faceless cases.
WORKED EXAMPLES
Illustration — Illustration 1 — Breaking search seal
Facts. A Ltd's premises searched; cupboard sealed u/s 132(3); employee breaks seal in absence of search team.
Computation.
Section 275A — contravention of prohibitory order under s.
132(3).
Wilful element via breach with knowledge.
Section 278E presumption — mens rea assumed.
Defence: ignorance / instruction-to-clean-up — weak in face of seal-breach evidence.
Result. Strong conviction prospects.
Illustration — Illustration 2 — Asset transfer post-restraint
Facts. B Ltd's bank account restrained u/s 132(3); B Ltd transfers funds despite restraint notice.
STATUTORY ARCHITECTURE — 18-ROW MAP
01. Section & marginal note
Section 275A — Contravention of Search Order — Chapter X-B (Transfer Pricing).
02. Sub-section structure
Per operative text — see Block 1 verbatim.
03. Operative trigger
International transaction (or SDT) between Associated Enterprises.
04. Persons affected
Resident or NR — wherever ALP / AE / international-transaction nexus exists.
05. Time anchor
Per financial year — TP documentation contemporaneous; Form 3CEB due with assessment.
06. Income anchor
Income from international transaction or SDT — to be computed at ALP.
07. Residential-status nexus
AE definition independent of residence; non-resident AE common.
08. Rate / charge mechanism
Recomputed income at ALP taxed at normal rates; primary + secondary adjustments separately.
09. TDS / TCS interaction
TDS u/s 195 on payments to NR-AE; rate consistent with treaty / domestic source rule.
10. Advance-tax obligation
Recomputed income subject to advance tax; interest u/s 234A/B/C.
11. Presumptive provisions
TP framework applies notwithstanding presumptive regime.
12. Exemption / deduction mechanism
Deductions disallowed if not at ALP; secondary adjustment may be repatriation-deemed.
13. Refund / credit
Net effect post-MAP / APA; foreign tax credit interplay.
14. Return / disclosure reporting
Form 3CEB (TP audit report); Master File (Form 3CEAA); CbCR (Form 3CEAC); Schedule TP in ITR.
15. Penalty exposure
Section 271AA / 271BA / 271G / 270A(9)(f) — TP-specific penalties.
16. Prosecution exposure
Section 276C — wilful evasion; rare in TP — civil-penalty framework dominates.
17. Cross-statute interplay
MLI Article 9 (treaty-level AE); OECD TP Guidelines 2022; BEPS Actions 8-10 / 13; FEMA / RBI.
18. Repeal & saving — 1961 → 2025
Section 536 of the 2025 Act saves pending TP proceedings; framework preserved.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Section 275A criminalises contravention of orders issued under section 132 in the course of search and seizure proceedings. Specifically, contravention of an order under section 132(1) (search order), section 132(3) (prohibitory order on assets / documents), or section 132(8A) (extension of prohibitory orders) attracts the offence. Punishment: rigorous imprisonment up to 2 years + fine.
The provision protects the integrity of the search-and-seizure framework. Common violations: removing items from search-locked premises, breaking seals, altering / destroying documents under prohibitory order, transferring assets covered by section 132(3) restraint. Mens rea — wilful contravention — required.
Practitioner reality — section 275A prosecution is rare relative to TDS / evasion offences. It serves primarily as a deterrent against active obstruction. The 2025 Act preserves the framework.
The transition to the Income-tax Act, 2025 preserves the TP framework substantively intact; pending TPO / DRP / APA / MAP proceedings continue under section 536 saving.
FINANCE ACT AMENDMENT TIMELINE
■ Income-tax Act 1961 — Chapter XXII inserted with prosecution framework.
■ Finance Act 1965 — Section 275 framework first refined.
■ Finance Act 1985 — Search / requisition prosecution framework refined.
■ Finance Act 1986 — Section 278E presumption-of-culpable-mental-state inserted.
■ Finance Act 1986 — Section 278AA reasonable-cause defence inserted.
■ Finance Act 1989 — Section 278B / 278C vicarious-liability framework.
■ Finance Act 1997 — Search-document presumption (s. 278D) refined.
■ Finance Act 2002 — Section 279 compounding framework refined.
■ Finance Act 2012 — TDS/TCS-default offences reaffirmed.
■ Finance Act 2018 — Faceless prosecution procedural framework.
■ BNS 2023 — Replaced IPC; abetment / conspiracy provisions realigned.
■ Finance Act 2025 — Framework preserved.
JUDICIAL EVOLUTION — VERIFIED LANDMARK AUTHORITIES
▸ Mathuram Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999) 8 SCC 667 ; (2000) 1 SCR 1 (Supreme Court)
Facts. A municipal levy was challenged on the ground that the charging provision did not clearly specify the rate, the persons charged, and the measure of tax.
Issue. Whether a tax can be imposed in the absence of a clear, unambiguous charging provision identifying the subject, measure, rate, and incidence.
HELD. Article 265 demands that tax be levied only by clear authority of law. The four components — taxable event, person, rate, and measure — must be clearly discernible from the charging provision; ambiguity is fatal to the levy.
“The intention of the Legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions, particularly when the language is plain and unambiguous. In a taxing Act it is not possible to assume any intention or governing purpose other than what is given expression to.”
Relevance. Foundational authority on the rigour required of charging sections — underpins arguments that ambiguous deeming fictions, surcharge formulas, and rate prescriptions must be strictly construed.
▸ Commissioner of Income-tax v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 ; (2010) 11 SCC 762 (Supreme Court)
Facts. The assessee claimed deduction of interest on borrowings used for investment in shares yielding tax-free dividend. The deduction was disallowed under section 14A. The Department levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment / inaccurate particulars.
Issue. Whether a mere disallowance of a deduction — without any falsehood in the particulars furnished — attracts penalty under section 271(1)(c).
HELD. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not attracted merely because a claim for deduction is disallowed. The assessee's claim must be shown to be false, frivolous, or made without bona fides; mere unsustainability does not amount to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
“A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to inaccurate particulars.”
Relevance. Cornerstone authority for resisting penalty under section 271(1)(c) / section 270A — applies to disallowed deductions, transfer-pricing adjustments, head-of-income re-characterisations where a bona-fide claim was made.
▸ Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (2007) 291 ITR 519 ; (2007) 6 SCC 329 (Supreme Court)
Facts. The assessee was visited with section 271(1)(c) penalty without the AO specifying which limb — concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars — was being invoked; the show-cause notice merely reproduced the statutory language without striking off inapplicable limbs.
Issue. Whether a section 271(1)(c) penalty levied without specifying the limb in the notice is sustainable.
HELD. The two limbs of section 271(1)(c) — concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars — are distinct charges with different scopes. The notice must specify which limb is invoked; failure renders the penalty unsustainable as a denial of natural justice.
“Concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are different. Although it may appear that both… imply the same meaning, they are different in nature. The notice must convey to the assessee the specific charge.”
Relevance. Anchor for striking down defective penalty notices — extended in SSA Emerald Meadows (Karnataka) and routinely applied across penalty matters.
▸ Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 ; (2015) 1 SCC 1 (Supreme Court — 5-Judge Constitution Bench)
Facts. The Department sought to apply a surcharge provision retrospectively to block-period assessments. The assessee contended that the amendment was substantive and could not have retrospective operation absent express legislative direction.
Issue. Whether amendments to taxing statutes operate prospectively unless the legislature has expressly or by necessary implication conferred retrospective effect.
HELD. The Constitution Bench reaffirmed the general rule against retrospectivity of taxing statutes. A taxing provision must be construed prospectively unless the language compels otherwise; mere insertion or substitution by amendment is not sufficient to deny vested rights.
“Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation.”
Relevance. Anchor authority for any argument that an amendment to a charging or computational provision must apply only from the AY notified — useful in transitional disputes around FA 2025 and the 1961 → 2025 changeover.
▸ Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta (1961) 41 ITR 191 ; AIR 1961 SC 372 (Supreme Court — Constitution Bench)
Facts. The assessee challenged a section 34 reassessment notice on the ground that the ITO had no jurisdictional foundation to reopen; the Revenue contended that the writ jurisdiction was ousted by the statutory appeals scheme.
Issue. Whether the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is ousted by the existence of a statutory remedy where the reassessment notice itself lacks jurisdictional foundation.
HELD. Existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not oust Article 226 jurisdiction where the impugned action is wholly without jurisdiction. The burden is on the assessee to disclose all primary facts; the duty to draw inferences rests with the assessing officer.
“The duty of the assessee in every case is to disclose fully and truly all primary facts. Once all primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure.”
Relevance. Foundational on the boundary between assessee's disclosure duty and the ITO's investigative duty — supports challenges to s. 147/148 (1961) / s. 281 (2025) reassessments on jurisdictional grounds.
CBDT CIRCULARS — ECOSYSTEM
▸ CBDT Circular No. 14(XL-35) of 1955 dated 11 April 1955
Subject. Duty of officers to assist assessees in claiming and securing relief
Substance. Foundational circular directing that the AO should not exploit assessee ignorance to deny legitimate reliefs; officer is required to draw attention to refunds or reliefs to which the assessee is entitled. The circular has been judicially noted in several appellate decisions and remains operative for first-appellate practice.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 549 dated 31 October 1989
Subject. Explanatory notes — Finance Act 1989 amendments (incl. PY unification)
Substance. Explained the FA 1987 / FA 1989 amendments unifying the previous year with the financial year preceding the AY, including transitional provisions for assessees with different accounting years. Useful in any controversy on the timing of accrual / chargeability for early post-1989 AYs.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014 dated 11 February 2014
Subject. Section 14A — dis-allowance even where no exempt income earned (since modulated)
Substance. Initially directed AOs to apply Rule 8D disallowance under section 14A even where no exempt income was earned in the year; subsequently modulated by Cheminvest (Del HC) and Maxopp (SC). FA 2022 amendment to section 14A re-asserted the position but remains under litigation.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2019 dated 20 March 2019
Subject. Withdrawal of low-tax-effect appeals — monetary thresholds
Substance. Revised monetary thresholds for departmental appeals — ITAT (Rs 50L), HC (Rs 1 Cr), SC (Rs 2 Cr); subsequently further revised. Operates as a non-statutory limitation on the Revenue's appellate engagement, binding under section 119.
▸ CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2024 dated 15 March 2024
Subject. Procedure for transitional reassessment notices post-Ashish Agarwal / Rajeev Bansal
Substance. Procedural guidance for AOs handling transitional reassessment notices for AYs 2013-14 to 2017-18 affected by Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Sets out the form of section 148A inquiry, time-bar calculation under TOLA, and JAO/FAO jurisdiction in faceless cases.
WORKED EXAMPLES
Illustration — Illustration 1 — Breaking search seal
Facts. A Ltd's premises searched; cupboard sealed u/s 132(3); employee breaks seal in absence of search team.
Computation.
Section 275A — contravention of prohibitory order under s.
132(3).
Wilful element via breach with knowledge.
Section 278E presumption — mens rea assumed.
Defence: ignorance / instruction-to-clean-up — weak in face of seal-breach evidence.
Result. Strong conviction prospects.
Illustration — Illustration 2 — Asset transfer post-restraint
Facts. B Ltd's bank account restrained u/s 132(3); B Ltd transfers funds despite restraint notice.
Computation.
Section 275A — contravention.
Section 276 may also apply (property removal).
Cascade prosecution.
Section 279(1) sanction; PCIT/CIT review.
Result. Multiple-offence cascade.
Illustration — Illustration 3 — Bona-fide difficulty defence
Facts. C Ltd argued breach was inadvertent — restraint notice unclear.
Computation.
Mens rea defence — bona-fide misunderstanding.
Section 278E presumption rebuttable.
Documentation of restraint-notice ambiguity + legal advice + immediate-cure helps.
Conviction unlikely on first-time bona-fide breach.
Result. Inadvertence defence available.
Illustration — Illustration 4 — Compounding option
Facts. D Ltd faces section 275A; opts for compounding.
Computation.
CBDT Circular 25/2019 — section 275A typically compoundable subject to conditions.
Fee per Circular; pre-conditions include cure of breach + restoration.
PCIT/CIT sanction.
Result. Compounding closes the matter.
Illustration — Illustration 5 — Section 132 search framework interplay
Facts. E Ltd's section 275A defence references section 132 procedural defects.
Computation.
If section 132 search itself is procedurally defective (e.g., unauthorized officer, jurisdictional defect), the search-order is voidable.
Section 275A breach of void order — defence available.
Article 226 writ on s.
132 defects + section 482 CrPC quashing of section 275A complaint can run parallel.
Result. Procedural-defect defence at section 132 layer.
PRACTITIONER PLANNING NOTES
■ Mens rea critical for most prosecutions; section 278E presumption rebuttable on preponderance.
■ Section 278AA reasonable-cause defence — for designated offences only.
■ Compounding under section 279(2) — preferred path to avoid criminal record.
■ CBDT Circular 25/2019 — fee structure varies by section.
■ Section 278B vicarious liability — directors / officers personally exposed.
■ Section 278C HUF parallel — karta / member exposure.
■ Section 279(1) sanction by PCIT/CIT — defective sanction = void prosecution.
■ Bar of limitation under CrPC s. 468 — 3-year threshold for offences punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years.
■ Section 275 — civil-penalty time-bar parallel.
■ Documentation 8-10 years — prosecution may revive old years.
■ First-time-offender mitigation in sentencing.
■ Quantum-of-tax payment — strong mitigation.
■ Cure-before-complaint — prosecution policy preference.
■ Faceless prosecution — VC hearings; jurisdiction de-coupled.
■ Section 279A non-cognizable framework — bail-as-of-right; magistrate process.
LITIGATION DEFENCE
■ Mens rea defence — section 277 / 278 etc. require WILFUL / FRAUDULENT conduct.
■ Section 278E presumption rebuttable on preponderance of probability.
■ Section 278AA reasonable-cause defence for designated offences.
■ Reliance Petroproducts ratio — bona-fide claim disclosed in return defence.
■ Dilip N. Shroff — discretion + mens rea in false-statement context.
■ Mathuram Agrawal — strict construction of penal provisions.
■ Vatika Township — prospective amendment; retrospective penalty barred.
■ Calcutta Discount — Article 226 writ for jurisdictional defects.
■ Section 279(1) sanction defect — quashing under section 482 CrPC.
■ Compounding under section 279(2) — alternative path; CBDT guidelines.
■ Section 278B(2) / 278C — due-diligence defence (where applicable).
■ S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals — specific-role pleading requirement for directors.
■ CrPC s. 468 limitation bar.
■ CrPC s. 482 inherent-power quashing.
■ Acquittal in quantum proceedings often supports prosecution defence.
■ Documentation discipline — contemporaneous records, professional advice, system controls.
STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURE — 15 STEPS
Step 1. AO satisfaction recorded
AO records satisfaction of offence in assessment / penalty order.
Step 2. PCIT/CIT sanction under s. 279(1)
Mandatory written sanction before complaint.
Step 3. Complaint to Magistrate
Written complaint by Income-tax authority; s. 200 CrPC.
Step 4. Magistrate cognizance
Magistrate takes cognizance; summons / warrant issued.
Step 5. First appearance / bail
Bail application; section 279A non-cognizable framework — bail-as-of-right.
Step 6. Charge framing
Charge framed under specific section.
Step 7. Prosecution evidence
Department leads evidence — record, witnesses, expert.
Step 8. Section 313 CrPC statement
Accused's statement on incriminating evidence.
Step 9. Defence evidence
Accused leads defence — bona-fide / reasonable cause / no mens rea.
Step 10. Final arguments
Both sides; case-law compilation; section 278AA / 278E arguments.
Step 11. Judgment
Magistrate decides; conviction / acquittal / discharge.
Step 12. Compounding option (any stage)
Section 279(2) — apply for compounding; CBDT guidelines.
Step 13. Appeal to Sessions
Appeal under CrPC; second-tier criminal court.
Step 14. Revision / HC
Revision before HC; section 482 quashing.
Step 15. SC under Article 136
Special leave petition; exceptional circumstances.
PRACTITIONER CHECKLIST — 19 ITEMS
PRACTITIONER CHECKLIST
☐ Mens rea evidence assessed.
☐ Section 273B framing (parallel civil).
☐ Section 278AA framing (prosecution).
☐ Section 278E rebuttal evidence.
☐ Section 279(1) sanction validity.
☐ Section 279(2) compounding application.
☐ CBDT Circular 25/2019 fee computation.
☐ Quantum-tax payment status.
☐ Bona-fide-difficulty documentation.
☐ Section 278B / 278C defence (where applicable).
☐ Acquittal / favourable order leveraged.
☐ Document-preservation 8-10 years.
☐ First-time-offender mitigation prepared.
☐ Faceless / e-court compliance.
☐ Case-law compilation.
☐ CrPC procedural safeguards.
☐ Civil-penalty parallel proceedings tracked.
☐ CrPC s. 468 limitation analysis.
☐ Section 482 quashing pleadings (if applicable).
CROSS-REFERENCES (28+)
CROSS-REFERENCES
▸ Section 275A — Search-order contravention.
▸ Section 275B — Search-books inspection failure.
▸ Section 276 — Property removal to prevent recovery.
▸ Section 276B — TDS-default offence.
▸ Section 276BB — TCS-default offence.
▸ Section 276C — Wilful tax evasion.
▸ Section 276CC — Return-filing failure.
▸ Section 277 — False statement in verification.
▸ Section 277A — Falsification of books.
▸ Section 278 — Abetment of false return.
▸ Section 278A — Second / subsequent offence enhancement.
▸ Section 278AA — Reasonable-cause defence (selected offences).
▸ Section 278B — Offences by companies.
▸ Section 278C — Offences by HUF.
▸ Section 278D — Presumption-search-document.
▸ Section 278E — Presumption-culpable-mental-state.
▸ Section 279 — Sanction + compounding.
▸ Section 279A — Non-cognizable framework.
▸ Section 280 — Disclosure-prohibition / restricted use.
▸ Section 273B — Reasonable-cause civil-penalty umbrella.
▸ Section 132 — Search and seizure.
▸ Section 132A — Requisition framework.
▸ Section 133A — Survey framework.
▸ CrPC 1973 — General criminal procedure.
▸ Section 482 CrPC — Quashing of complaints.
▸ BNS 2023 — Successor to IPC (abetment / conspiracy).
▸ Indian Evidence Act 1872 — Presumptions framework.
▸ PMLA 2002 — Predicate offences.
▸ CBDT Circular 25/2019 — Compounding guidelines.
▸ Income-tax Act, 2025 — Section 536 saving for prosecution.