https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208920 In a prosecution for tax evasion, the Court held that the prosecution must prove deliberate concealment or a willful attempt to evade tax beyond reasonable doubt; disallowed purchases and uncorroborated departmental enquiries were insufficient, and suspicion could not replace proof. The acquittal was therefore justified. The Court also held that, where the alleged offence was punishable with imprisonment up to three years, the three-year limitation period under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied; as the complaint was filed more than three years after the department acquired knowledge of the alleged offence, cognizance was barred and the complaint was time-barred. en-us Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208920 In a prosecution for tax evasion, the Court held that the prosecution must prove deliberate concealment or a willful attempt to evade tax beyond reasonable doubt; disallowed purchases and uncorroborated departmental enquiries were insufficient, and suspicion could not replace proof. The acquittal was therefore justified. The Court also held that, where the alleged offence was punishable with imprisonment up to three years, the three-year limitation period under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied; as the complaint was filed more than three years after the department acquired knowledge of the alleged offence, cognizance was barred and the complaint was time-barred. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208920