On a criminal petition filed, the High Court held that for an offence to be said to be committed u/s 277, the misstatement is required to be wilful made with a mala fide or dishonest intention in order to prosecute the assessee. That delayed payment of income tax would not amount to evasion of tax, so long as there is payment of tax, more so for reason that in returns filed there is an acknowledgement of tax due to be paid. That all directors of company cannot be automatically prosecuted without specific allegations made against each of directors who is intended to be prosecuted for any violation of tax laws. Such specific allegation would have to amount to an offence and satisfy the requirement of that particular provision under which the prosecution is sought to be initiated and preliminary investigation has to be concluded, more so when the prosecution is initiated by the Income Tax Department who has all the requisite material in its possession. That at time of taking cognisance and issuance of process, Court taking cognisance is required to pass a sufficiently detailed order to support conclusion to take cognisance and issue process.  Accordingly the Court held that the prosecution initiated by the revenue was misconceived and not sustainable.   (AY.  2013-14) Obiter Dicta : The income-tax Department was directed to consider the provisions  of a facility in its software to upload income-tax returns with actual amount paid and for the  system to accept the returns even though the complete amounts had not been paid.