Question

Under Section 201 of the BNS, 2023, P, a senior income tax officer, is officially charged with reviewing and certifying a taxpayer's Income Tax Return (IT

  • R submitted electronically. P deliberately alters the digital ITR document by increasing the taxpayer's claimed expenses by ₹20 lakhs, intending to help his brother (the taxpayer) evade taxes. P knows this alteration is incorrect and will cause injury to the Government's revenue interests. P then issues a false certification approving the doctored ITR. Which of the following correctly determines P's criminal liability?
A P is liable under Section 201 because he, being a public servant charged with preparing or reviewing electronic records, framed or prepared that record in a manner he knew to be incorrect with intent to cause injury
B P is not liable under Section 201 because falsifying tax returns is exclusively covered under the Income Tax Act; Section 201 applies only to judicial or police document
C P is liable under Section 201 only if the taxpayer personally approached him; unilateral action by P is covered under a different statute
D P's liability under Section 201 is limited to financial penalties without imprisonment because the offence involves electronic records, not physical documents
E P is liable under Section 201 only if he physically printed and signed the incorrect document; digital alterations are covered under Information Technology Act exclusively
Practice Next

Hey! Ask a query