Home / Income Tax Act 2025 / Section 490

Section 490 Income Tax Act 2025: When Is Criminal Intent Presumed in Tax Prosecution?

In a prosecution for an income-tax offence that requires a culpable mental state, can the court presume intent or knowledge? Section 490 creates a rebuttable statutory presumption, while allowing the accused to prove the absence of the required mental state.

Key point: Section 490 is an evidentiary rule for criminal prosecutions. It does not independently create an offence or prescribe a fine or imprisonment. The accused may rebut the presumption, but Section 490(3) requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, not merely a balance of probabilities.

What does Section 490 provide?

Section 490 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 is titled "Presumption as to culpable mental state". It applies where an offence under the Act requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused. In such a prosecution, the court must presume that mental state exists, subject to the accused's statutory right to prove its absence in relation to the act charged.

This provision operates in criminal proceedings. It does not mean that every error in a tax return is automatically a crime, or that the prosecution need not establish the other ingredients of the alleged offence.

Explanation of Section 490(1), (2) and (3)

Section 490(1): Rebuttable presumption

Where the charged income-tax offence requires a culpable mental state, the court shall presume its existence. The accused can defend the charge by proving that the required mental state was absent in relation to the alleged act. The statutory presumption is therefore rebuttable, not conclusive.

Section 490(2): Meaning of culpable mental state

The Act expressly includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact, belief in a fact and reason to believe a fact within the expression "culpable mental state". The precise state of mind relevant to a case depends on the language of the substantive offence being prosecuted.

Section 490(3): Standard of proof

For the purposes of this section, a fact is proved only if the court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt; establishing it merely by a preponderance of probability is insufficient. This expressly sets a demanding standard for rebutting the presumed mental state.

Relevant statutory expressions

Culpable mental state: Intention, motive, knowledge of a fact, belief in a fact or reason to believe a fact, as specified in Section 490(2).
Presumption: A legal inference that the court is directed to draw when the statutory conditions apply, unless successfully rebutted as provided by law.
Beyond reasonable doubt: The express standard required by Section 490(3) for a fact to be treated as proved for this section; it is more demanding than proof on a balance of probabilities.
Preponderance of probability: A civil standard that generally asks whether a proposition is more likely than not. Section 490(3) explicitly says this standard alone is not enough.

When does the presumption apply?

  • There must be a prosecution for an offence under the Income-tax Act, 2025.
  • The offence charged must require a culpable mental state as an element.
  • The presumption concerns that mental state, not an automatic finding that all other elements of the offence are established.
  • The accused has the opportunity to prove the absence of the relevant mental state in relation to the act charged.

For example, offences concerning wilful attempts to evade tax, knowingly false verification or abetment may raise questions about intention or knowledge. Whether Section 490 applies must be determined from the actual offence charged and the evidence before the court.

How can an accused person rebut the presumption?

Relevant material may include contemporaneous correspondence, accounting instructions, transaction records, evidence of independent checks, professional advice actually sought and followed, and other facts that bear on the accused's state of mind. None of these materials automatically establishes a defence. Their significance depends on the charge, their reliability and whether the court is satisfied to the standard specified in Section 490(3).

A claim that a return was prepared by an accountant, by itself, does not necessarily prove the absence of knowledge or intention. Equally, a genuine factual mistake should not be treated as conclusive proof of deliberate wrongdoing without examining the statutory ingredients and surrounding evidence.

Practical illustrations

Example 1: Disputed false verification

A taxpayer is prosecuted for allegedly making a statement known to be false. Section 490 may require the court to presume the relevant knowledge. The taxpayer may seek to rebut that presumption through credible evidence showing lack of awareness of the falsity, subject to the stringent statutory standard.

Example 2: Accounting discrepancy without deliberate intent

An unexplained difference in books of account may justify tax inquiries or adjustments, but it does not, by itself, establish every element of a criminal charge. If an offence requiring intent is prosecuted, Section 490 governs the presumption and the available defence regarding that intent.

Section 490 and the earlier Section 278E

Section 490 substantially carries forward the presumption contained in Section 278E of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Under the 2025 Act, the statutory definition and the standard of proof appear as separate subsections. Decisions interpreting Section 278E may be relevant where their reasoning remains applicable to the corresponding language and facts.

Frequently asked questions

Does Section 490 mean the accused is automatically guilty?

No. It establishes a rebuttable presumption concerning the mental element of an offence requiring such a state of mind. Other legal requirements of the charge and the accused's right to defend the prosecution remain relevant.

Who must prove absence of criminal intent under Section 490?

The accused may rebut the statutory presumption by proving absence of the required culpable mental state in relation to the charged act, in accordance with Section 490(1) and (3).

Is a balance of probabilities sufficient?

No. Section 490(3) expressly requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for the purposes of this section.

Does Section 490 impose a separate punishment?

No. It concerns evidentiary presumptions in prosecutions for offences defined elsewhere in the Act.

Official statutory source

Income-tax Act, 2025, as amended by the Finance Act, 2026 - Income Tax Department (PDF)

Read Section 490 with the specific offence charged, including where applicable Sections 478, 482, 483 and 484, and the prosecution procedure in Section 491. This article provides general statutory information and is not advice on any particular criminal case.

Last reviewed: 12 November 2026.