Presumption as to culpable mental state
[Section-490 as per the Income Tax Act, 2025 (this Act) w.e.f. 1st April, 2026.]
Section 490(1) of Income Tax Act 2025
490(1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act, which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
Section 490(2) of Income Tax Act 2025
490(2) In this section, “culpable mental state” includes intention, motive or knowledge of a fact or belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
Section 490(3) of Income Tax Act 2025
490(3) For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.
FAQs on Section 490 of Income Tax Act 2025
What does Section 490(1) of the Income Tax Act, 2025 state about culpable mental state in prosecutions?
It states that in any prosecution requiring a culpable mental state under the Act, the court shall presume such mental state exists. However, the accused can defend themselves by proving that they had no such mental state in relation to the act charged.
What does “culpable mental state” include under Section 490(2)?
Culpable mental state includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact, belief in a fact, or reason to believe a fact.
Can the presumption of culpable mental state be rebutted?
Yes, the accused can rebut the presumption by proving that they did not possess the culpable mental state regarding the alleged offence.
What standard of proof is required for the accused to rebut the presumption of culpable mental state?
The accused must prove the absence of culpable mental state beyond reasonable doubt, not merely on the basis of a preponderance of probability.
How is a fact treated as proved under Section 490(3) of the Income Tax Act, 2025?
A fact is treated as proved only when the court believes it exists beyond reasonable doubt.
Does the prosecution have to initially prove the existence of a culpable mental state?
No, the court presumes the existence of a culpable mental state, and it is for the accused to disprove it.
Why is the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” important in Section 490(3)?
It sets a higher threshold for the accused to disprove the presumed mental state, ensuring that only clear and convincing evidence can rebut the presumption.
Is motive alone sufficient to establish culpable mental state under Section 490?
Yes, since motive is explicitly included within the definition of culpable mental state under Section 490(2).
Does belief or reason to believe a fact qualify as a culpable mental state?
Yes, both belief and reason to believe a fact are considered part of the culpable mental state under Section 490(2).
Is Section 490 applicable to all offences under the Income Tax Act, 2025?
Section 490 applies specifically to offences under the Act that require a culpable mental state for prosecution.
What is the legal implication of the presumption created under Section 490(1)?
The legal implication is that the burden shifts to the accused to prove lack of culpable mental state, altering the usual burden of proof in criminal trials.
Refresh Page