Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The HC held that the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(b) and prosecution under s. 276CC arise from distinct statutory defaults and the quashing of penalty under s. 271(1)(b) does not extinguish criminal liability under s. 276CC. However, criminal liability under s. 276CC requires proof of wilful default, an essential element of mens rea. The reverse burden under s. 278E shifts the onus to the accused to disprove wilfulness beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the Respondent successfully rebutted the presumption, demonstrating that the failure to file returns in response to the s. 153A notice was not wilful. Consequently, despite the erroneous legal reasoning by the Appellate Court, the acquittal was upheld on the valid ground of absence of wilful default, thereby negating criminal culpability under s. 276CC.