https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300428 A criminal appeal by the Central Government against an acquittal was treated as maintainable under the amended scheme of Section 378(4) CrPC. On the merits, prosecution for wilful concealment under the Income-tax Act failed because the assessee had disclosed the pending tax proceedings, filed a revised return after notice, and included the refund amount in that return. The Court found no deliberate concealment, positive act of evasion, or false statement, and reaffirmed that conviction under Sections 276C and 277 requires proof of mens rea beyond reasonable doubt. Bona fide disclosure therefore negatived criminal liability and the acquittal was upheld. en-us Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Feb 2022 11:05:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300428 A criminal appeal by the Central Government against an acquittal was treated as maintainable under the amended scheme of Section 378(4) CrPC. On the merits, prosecution for wilful concealment under the Income-tax Act failed because the assessee had disclosed the pending tax proceedings, filed a revised return after notice, and included the refund amount in that return. The Court found no deliberate concealment, positive act of evasion, or false statement, and reaffirmed that conviction under Sections 276C and 277 requires proof of mens rea beyond reasonable doubt. Bona fide disclosure therefore negatived criminal liability and the acquittal was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300428