Offences Under Income-tax Act refer to violations, contraventions, or wrongful acts committed in breach of the provisions of the Income-tax Act that attract prosecution, penalties, fines, or imprisonment. These offences generally include wilful tax evasion, concealment of income, furnishing false statements, failure to comply with statutory obligations, obstruction of tax authorities, and contraventions relating to search, seizure, and tax proceedings. The prosecution of such offences is governed by the provisions relating to special courts, summons and warrant cases, and cognizable or non-cognizable classification under the applicable criminal procedure framework.
Table of Contents
- Chapter XXII of the Income Tax Act
- Relevant Legal Terms
- Difference Between Summons Case and a Warrant Case Under the BNSS
- Relevance of Difference Between Summons and Warrant Case
- Classification of the Offences Under Chapter XXII of the Income Tax Act, 1961
Check out Taxmann's Tax Prosecution under Income-tax/GST & Black Money Laws which is a practitioner-grade treatise dedicated exclusively to tax prosecution law and procedure—covering the Income-tax Act, GST, and the Black Money Act 2015 under one cover. It arrives at a defining moment: the Income-tax Act 2025 is in force from April 1, 2026, yet the 1961 Act continues to govern a large body of pending proceedings. It cross-references both regimes throughout, with a complete section-mapping table. Updated for the Finance Act 2026 and the BNSS 2023, it covers the entire prosecution lifecycle, from offences and sanction through trial, compounding, and appellate remedies, alongside a standalone treatment of GST prosecution and the Black Money Act. Addressed to tax advocates, chartered accountants, company directors, insolvency professionals, GST practitioners, revenue officers, and the judiciary, it is the definitive reference for every professional whose practice intersects with criminal tax liability.
1. Chapter XXII of the Income Tax Act
Section 280A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“1961 Act”), deals with the constitution of Special Courts for conducting prosecution proceedings under the Act. As per section 280D of the Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C”) (including provisions as to bails and bonds) to the extent inconsistent with the Act shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court.
The corresponding section of the 2025 Act dealing with the constitution of Special Courts is Section 495. As per section 498 of the 2025 Act, the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) (including the provisions as to bails or bonds) to the extent inconsistent with the Act shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court.
2. Relevant Legal Terms
For a clear understanding of the offences under Chapter XXII of the 1961 Act and the 2025 Act and their implication, it is pertinent to take note of the following legal terms:
2.1 Bailable Offence & Non-Bailable Offence
As per section 2(a) of the Cr.P.C, “bailable offence” means an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule (of the Cr.P.C), or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force; and “non-bailable offence” means any other offence.
As per section 2(c) of the BNSS, “bailable offence” means an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule (of the BNSS), or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being in force; and “non-bailable offence” means any other offence.
2.2 Cognizable Offence
As per section 2(c) of the Cr.P.C, “cognizable offence” means an offence for which and “cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule (of the Cr.P.C) or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant.
As per section 2(g) of the BNSS, “cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule (of the BNSS) or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant;
2.3 Non-Cognizable Offence
As per section 2(l) of the Cr.P.C, “non-cognizable offence” means an offence for which and “non-cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant.
As per section 2(o) of the BNSS “non-cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “non-cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant.
2.4 Summons-Case
As per section 2(w) of the Cr.P.C, “summons-case” means a case relating to an offence, and not being a warrant case. As per section 280C of the 1961 Act, it has been clarified that a special court shall try an offence under Chapter XXII of the Act punishable with imprisonment not exceeding two years or with fine or with both, as a summons case.
As per section 2(x) of the BNSS “summons-case” means a case relating to an offence, and not being a warrant-case. As per section 497 of the 2025 Act, it has been clarified that a special court shall try an offence under Chapter XXII of the Act punishable with imprisonment not exceeding two years or with fine or with both, as a summons case.
2.5 Warrant-Case
As per section 2(x) of the Cr.P.C, “warrant-case” means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years.
As per section 2(z) of the BNSS, “warrant-case” means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years.
3. Difference Between Summons Case and a Warrant Case Under the BNSS
| Warrant-Case | Summons-Case |
| BNSS prescribes two procedures for the trial of a warrant case by Magistrates:
(i) Where a case instituted on a Police Report (ii) Where a case is instituted otherwise than on a Police Report. |
There is only one procedure prescribed for the trial of a summons case whether it is instituted on a Police Report or a complaint. |
| Where a warrant case has been tried as a summons case, and it has resulted in the acquittal of the accused, such acquittal shall operate only as a discharge under section 268 of the BNSS. | Where a summons case has been tried as a warrant case and the accused is discharged under section 268, the discharge will amount to an acquittal under section 278 of the BNSS. |
| When the accused appears or is brought before a Magistrate in a warrant case, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution. | In a summon case, the particulars of the offence are stated to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or wishes to defend himself. |
| Framing of a formal charge is necessary in a warrant case. | It is not necessary in a summons case. |
| A warrant case may result in the discharge of the accused under section 272 of the Act in the absence of the complainant. | In a summons case, the result would be the acquittal of the accused under section 279 of the Act. |
| A warrant case cannot be converted into a summons case. | The Magistrate is empowered to convert a summons case into a warrant case under Section 282 of the Act. |
4. Relevance of Difference Between Summons and Warrant Case
The difference between a summons case and a warrant case is significant since the nature of the case determines the procedure to be adopted by the court in its proceedings. Whether a case is a summons-case or a warrant-case generally depends upon the gravity of the offence and the punishment prescribed for it.
Chapter XX of BNSS deals explicitly with the procedure relating to Warrant cases. Chapter XXI of BNSS, on the other hand, deals expressly with the procedure relating to the summons cases. There are cases where, generally, the punishment prescribed does not exceed two years. The process followed, however, in a warrant case is different. Warrant cases are usually where the punishment for the offence is minimum imprisonment of 2 years and can go up to a death sentence (depending on the nature of the offence). The trial in a warrant case is more elaborate as compared to the summons case.
4.1 Can a Warrant Case Be Tried as a Summons Case
A warrant case cannot be tried as a summons case. In this connection the Kerala High Court in State of Kerala v. E. Bhaskaran1 held as under:
[at page 956 (of Cri LJ)]:
“The procedures prescribed for warrant and summons cases are entirely different. The procedure prescribed for summons cases is simpler and speedier than that prescribed for warrant cases. Warrant cases as they deal with offences graver than those in summons cases cannot be tried in the same simple and speedy fashion as summons cases. Greater opportunities for defence are offered to the accused in a warrant case than in a summons case. Unlike in a summons case a charge has to be framed in a warrant case and the accused has also a right to reserve cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses till a last stage. These are substantial and valuable rights which an accused has if the procedure prescribed in Chapter XXI is followed and he cannot be deprived of them. The difference between the two forms of trial is not therefore merely one of form importing more irregularity curable u/s. 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Sec. 511 of the BNSS). On the other hand, it is so vital that there is an almost indefeasible presumption of prejudice to the accused if a warrant case is tried as a summons case.”
Whereas, a summons case can be tried as a warrant case as no prejudice is caused to the accused. The Supreme Court in Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam2 observed that the irregularity of a summon case tried as a warrant case does not vitiate the proceedings and is curable under section 537 of the 1898 Code (sec 465 of the 1973 Code, and Section 511 of the BNSS) as no prejudice is caused to the accused.
A warrant case procedure being more elaborate provides a better opportunity for the accused to defend himself. The summons or summary procedure is prescribed only for the trial of comparatively minor offences involving relatively lesser sentences. In serious cases, it is open to the Magistrate to convert a summon case into a warrant case, as provided for in section 282 of the BNSS3.
The detailed procedure of summons and warrant trial is explained in Chapter 10 later.
4.2 Relevance of the Classification of Offence as Cognizable or Non-Cognizable
The classification of an offence as cognizable or non-cognizable also assumes significance. As per section 2(g) of the BNSS “cognizable offence” means an offence for which a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule of the BNSS or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant. The First Schedule of the BNSS provides that any offence (under any law other than the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) which is punishable for the imprisonment of 3 years and upwards is Cognizable and other offences which are punishable for a period less than three years are non-cognizable. In other words, any offence which is punishable for the imprisonment of 3 years and upwards, the police officer may arrest without a warrant from any court.
However, it is important to note that there is no provision of arrest by a tax officer under the Income Tax Act for any offence under Chapter XXII, and therefore a person cannot be detained by a tax officer. The position that there is no power to arrest with a tax officer is further substantiated by the fact that section 279A of the 1961 Act makes certain offences under section 276B or section 276C or section 276CC or section 277 or section 278 which are punishable for a period of more than 3 years as non-cognizable. Similarly, Section 492 of the 2025 Act makes certain offences under sections 476, 478, 479, 480, 482 or 484 non-cognizable.
It is important to note that section 279A was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, w.e.f. l-10-1975 and at the relevant time only section 276B or section 276C or section 276CC or section 277 or section 278 of the Act punishes for a period of more than 3 years and accordingly section 279A of the Act effectively made all the offences under the Income Tax Act as non-cognizable. However, certain offences like section 276BB, punishable up to 7 years were inserted in the Act by the Finance Act, 1988, w.e.f. 1-6-1988 and since section 279A was not amended consequentially, it remained as a non-cognizable offence. It may, however, be noted that it is not clear as to how the tax officer would arrest a person for violation of this section without any specific power to arrest under the Act.
The classification of an offence as non-cognizable also assumes significance as no police officer has the power of their own to investigate any such offence. This issue came before the Calcutta High Court in the case of Hiralal Banka and Ors. v P.S. Bose and Ors.4 wherein an F.I.R was lodged by the C.B.I for violation of the provisions of sections 120B/420/468/471 of I.P.C. and sections 277/278 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without any such complaint by the tax authorities and without any sanction requited under section 279 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court quashed the F.I.R and it was held as under:
“4. It may be mentioned here that Section 276C of the Income Tax Act provides for punishment for wilful attempt to evade tax, etc. It is also to be noted in this connection that Sub-section (1) of Section 279 of the Income Tax Act provides that a person shall not be proceeded against for an offence Under Section 275A, Section 276, Section 276A, Section 276B, Section 276BB, Section 276C, Section 276CC, Section 276D, Section 277 or Section 278 except with the previous sanction of the Chief Commissioner or Director-General or Commissioner unless the prosecution is at the instance of the Commissioner (Appeals) or of the appropriate authority referred to therein. Section 279A of the Income Tax Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an offence punishable Under Section 276B or Section 276C or Section 276CC or Section 277 or Section 278 shall be deemed to be non-cognizable within the meaning of that Code. Reading Section 279A and Section 279 together it is evident that offences Under Section 277 and Section 278 of the Income Tax Act are not cognizable offences and as such the police have no power of their own to investigate any such offence and any prosecution for any such offence can be launched by a complaint with the previous sanction of the Chief Commissioner or Director-General or Commissioner. As we have seen the F.I.R. in this case mentions Sections 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act but the offences under the said sections being non-cognizable the police cannot investigate the same on the basis of their own power as a matter of course although prosecution under those sections can be launched by filing complaint with the previous sanction or at the instance of any of such authorities as mentioned in Section 279 of the Income Tax Act which evidently is not the case here. There is no doubt that the F.I.R. of the present case also includes several sections of the Indian Penal Code, such as, Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471. From the averments contained in the F.I.R. it is evident, apparent and transparent that substantially the allegation on the basis of which the investigation has been started is that the petitioners in collusion and conspiracy with others evaded payment of proper income tax and also submitted income tax returns based on false statements and forged and fabricated materials. The basic offences, if any, being under the Income Tax Act the requirement regarding sanction for prosecution and the bar of lack of authority on the part of the police to investigate such offences in view of the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act cannot be circumvented by inclusion of some other ancillary offences under the Indian Penal Code which are only components of or rather only incidental to or instrumental in the commission of the basic offences under the Income Tax Act or which are closely linked up with such offences and which have no separate consequences other than what are sought, to be prevented by enacting specific penal provisions in the Income Tax Act, namely, evasion of tax and steps in that direction. In that view of the matter also the F.I.R. cannot be sustained simply because offences punishable under certain sections of the Indian Penal Code, such as, sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 120B have been included in the F.I.R. along with the main offences punishable under the Income Tax Act which, under law, the police cannot investigate on the basis of their own authority.”
5. Classification of the Offences Under Chapter XXII of the Income Tax Act, 1961
5.1 Summon Cases
| Section | Offences | Punishment | Bailable/Non- Bailable |
| 275A | Contravention of an order made under section 132(1) (Second Proviso) requiring the assessee to maintain the status quo of any valuable article in assessee’s possession in which case it is not possible to take physical possession of such article by the authorized officer, due to its volume, weight or other physical characteristics or due to its being of dangerous nature; or contravention under section 132(3) which relates to the order prohibiting the assessee to part with or remove any article without the previous permission of the concerned officer in respect to cases not covered under section 132(1) | Imprisonment up to 2 Years and Fine | Bailable |
| 275B | Refusal to allow and facilitate the inspection of accounts and books kept in electronic form. Section 132(1)(iib) which requires any person to afford the authorised officer to inspect any books of account or other document maintained in the form of electronic record as defined in section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. | Imprisonment up to 6 months or with Fine or with Both | Bailable |
| 276 | Fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer or delivery to any person of any property or any interest therein, to prevent that property or interest therein being taken in execution | Imprisonment up to 2 Years and Fine | Bailable |
| 276A | Failure to give notice of appointment as:
as required by section 178(1) [within 30 days of becoming liquidator, notice to be given to Assessing officer]
Or Failure to set aside sufficient amount to provide for any existing or likely tax liability, payable by the company as required by section 178(3); Or Parting with the assets of the company or the properties in contravention of section 178(3). Note – No prosecution under this section to be launched on or after April 1, 2023 |
Rigorous Imprisonment up to 2 Years | Bailable |
| 276AB | Failure to comply with section 269UC (Transfer of immovable property in such area as prescribed or of value exceeding 5 lakh rupees to be made after an agreement in writing which shall be made at least 4 months before the intended date of transfer), Failure to deliver the possession of the property under section 269UE(2) (Delivery of possession of the property), or Contravene section 269UL(2) (Doing any act prejudicing Transfer of Property).
Note – No prosecution under this section to be launched on or after April 1, 2022. |
Rigorous Imprisonment up to 2 Years and Fine | Bailable |
| 276C(1) | Wilful attempt, in any manner, to evade any tax, penalty, or interest under the Act | Amount sought to be evaded or Tax exceeds 50 Lakh Rupees – Imprisonment up to 2 Years or with Fine or with Both. | Bailable |
- AIR 1971 Ker. 188.
- AIR 1961 S.C. 986.
- Section 282. Power of Court to convert summons-cases into warrant-cases. When in the course of the trial of a summons-case relating to an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding six months, it appears to the Magistrate that in the interests of justice, the offence should be tried in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases, such Magistrate may proceed to re-hear the case in the manner provided by this Sanhita for the trial of warrant-cases and may recall any witness who may have been examined.
- (1993) 2 CALLT 299 (HC).
The post Offences Under Income Tax Act—Legal Terms appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
