Section 276C(2) demands proof of deliberate evasion, not just default.
Recently, Hon’ble Justice S.M. Modak in a landmark Bombay High Court ruling in a criminal Writ Petition No. 3840 of 2025 has held that Section 276C(2) demands proof of deliberate evasion and not mere default in payment. Assessee triumphed against prosecution under Section 276C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [1].
Let us have a Short Highlight of the Judgement: –
– Court drew a sharp line between mere delay in self-assessment tax payment (cleared on 16.01.2023 post-05.11.2022 filing) and “willful evasion”—holding the latter absent amid pleaded financial constraints.
– Rejected Revenue’s stance, ruling complaint averments insufficient to infer intent; prosecution deemed an abuse of process, quashing the JMFC Pune order dated 05.12.2024.
– Referenced Unique Trading Co. to affirm: Section 276C(2) demands proof of deliberate evasion, not just default.
The copy of the order is as under:
 demands proof of deliberate evasion, not just default.){kind=link}
 demands proof of deliberate evasion, not just default.&description=&image=https://thetaxtalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Slide2-11.jpg){kind=link}