https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393885 The Court concluded that the petitioner, after paying the demanded tax amount and the respondent acknowledging the payment, should not be penalized under Section 276 (c ) (2) of the Income Tax Act. The Court found no deliberate intention by the petitioner to evade tax, as the delay in filing the return was due to the respondent withholding the seized book of accounts. Consequently, the Court deemed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner as an abuse of process of law, quashing the proceedings and allowing the criminal original petition, leading to the closure of connected miscellaneous petitions. en-us Fri, 06 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Mar 2020 12:51:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393885 The Court concluded that the petitioner, after paying the demanded tax amount and the respondent acknowledging the payment, should not be penalized under Section 276 (c ) (2) of the Income Tax Act. The Court found no deliberate intention by the petitioner to evade tax, as the delay in filing the return was due to the respondent withholding the seized book of accounts. Consequently, the Court deemed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner as an abuse of process of law, quashing the proceedings and allowing the criminal original petition, leading to the closure of connected miscellaneous petitions. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393885