Crl.mc/5671/2020 Of Forzza Developers Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 22ND MAGHA,1942 Crl.MC.No.5669 OF 2020(G) CC 2655/2019 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (ECONOMICOFFENCES), ERNAKULAM PETITIONERS: 1M/s FORZZA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, 2/517, SALEEMA HOSPITAL ROAD, THALAKADATHUR P.O.,TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN – 676 103 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND PRINCIPAL OFFICER VELLAKKAT NIAZ (WITHIN THE LIMITS OF TIRUR POLICE STATION) 2VELLAKKAT NIAZ, AGED 54 YEARS,SON OF LATE Mr.MAMMED KUTTY,SON OF LATE Mr.MAMMED KUTTY, MANAGING DIRECTOR AND PRINCIPAL OFFICER,M/s FORZZA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,M/s FORZZA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, 2/491, SALEEMA HOSPITAL ROAD, THALAKADATHUR P.O.,TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN – 676 103 (WITHIN THE LIMITS OF TIRUR POLICE STATION) 3MOHAMMED ASHIQUE KAINIKKARA, AGED 52 YEARS,SON OF LATE Mr.MAMMI HAJI,SON OF LATE Mr.MAMMI HAJI, DIRECTOR, M/s FORZZA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, 2/491, SALEEMA HOSPITAL ROAD, THALAKADATHUR P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN 676 103 (WITHIN THE LIMITS OF TIRUR POLICE STATION) BY ADVS.SMT.LATHA ANAND SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL) RESPONDENTS: 1PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), 5[th] FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS,M.G. ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682011(CENTRAL), 5[th] FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS,M.G. ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682011 2THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, KOZHIKODE,CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN,CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, NEW ANNEXE BUILDING, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 001. R1 BY SR. ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON, SC FOR INCOME TAX R1 BY JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX BY ADV. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.R. DHANIL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON11.02.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5671/2020(H), THE COURT ON THESAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 22ND MAGHA,1942 Crl.MC.No.5671 OF 2020(H) CC 2654/2019 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (ECONOMICOFFENCES), ERNAKULAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: 1M/s FORZZA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,2/491, SALEEMA HOSPITAL ROAD, THALAKADATHUR P.O., TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN-676 103, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND PRINCIPAL OFFICER VELLAKKAT NIAZ (WITHIN THE LIMITS OF TIRUR POLICE STATION) 2VELLAKKAT NIAZ, AGED 54 YEARS,SON OF LATE MR. MAMMED KUTTY, MANAGING DIRECTOR AND PRINCIPAL OFFICER, M/s FORZZA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, 2/491, SALEEMA HOSPITAL ROAD, THALAKADATHUR P.O.,TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN-676 103. (WITHIN THE LIMITS OF TIRUR POLICE STATION) 3MOHAMMED ASHIQUE KAINIKKARA, AGED 52 YEARS,SON OF LATE MR. MAMMI HAJEE, DIRECTOR, M/s FORZZA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, 2/491, SALEEMA HOSPITAL ROAD, THALAKADATHUR P.O.,TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN-676 103. (WITHIN THE LIMITS OF TIRUR POLICE STATION) BY ADVS.SMT.LATHA ANAND SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL) SHRI.SIDHARTH P.S. RESPONDENTS/SANCTIONING AUTHORITY & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), 5TH FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI, PIN-682 011. 2THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCCLE-2, KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, NEW ANNEXE BUILDING, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 001. R1-2 BY SR. ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON, SC FOR INCOME TAX R1-2 BY JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAXBY ADV. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTBY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.R.DHANIL BY ADVS.SMT.LATHA ANAND SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL) SHRI.SIDHARTH P.S. RESPONDENTS/SANCTIONING AUTHORITY & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), 5TH FLOOR, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI, PIN-682 011. 2THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCCLE-2, KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NORTH BLOCK, NEW ANNEXE BUILDING, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 001. R1-2 BY SR. ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON, SC FOR INCOME TAX R1-2 BY JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAXBY ADV. SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENTBY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.R.DHANIL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON11.02.2021, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.5669/2020(G), THE COURT ON THESAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER CR The complaints alleging offence under Section 276 C (2) of theIncome Tax Act are sought to be quashed on the ground that a mere failureto pay the income tax based on the self assessment would not constitutethe offence under that section. Admittedly, at the time of submission ofreturn based on self assessment tax, the tax was not remitted.Subsequently, it was remitted with interest by availing installment facility.Regarding the penalty imposed, an appeal was preferred, which is pendingbefore the appellate authority. 2.The petitioner seeks to quash the complaints and its furtherproceedings on the reason that there is only a failure to make payment ofthe tax in time as per the self assessment return and it will not fall underany of the clauses (i) to (iv) in the Explanation attached to Section 276 C ofthe Income Tax Act and hence, the criminal liability under that sectioncannot be fastened. But it was countered by the Income Tax Departmentstating that it is incumbent on the tax payer to remit the tax based on theself assessment and the non-payment would come under the expression“evade the payment of tax” as incorporated in sub-section (2) of Section276 C of the Act and cannot seek protection under the Explanation, whichis not applicable to that sub-section. It was brought to the notice of this Court that in sub-section (1), the words used are “evade any tax”, but thewords “evade the payment of any tax” have been incorporated in sub-section (2). It is submitted that the word “payment” is conspicuouslyabsent in sub-section (1) and the Explanation attached thereto and thatwhat is dealt under the Explanation is with regard to “evade any tax” andnot with respect to “evade the payment of tax” as incorporated in sub-section (2) and hence the Explanation attached must be understood onlyrelating to the cases, which would fall under sub-section (1) and not sub-section (2) and took support from G.Viswanathan v. Income TaxOfficer, A-Ward, Parameswar Nagar (1987 Vol. 167 ITR 103).The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below for reference : “Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 276C deal with twodifferent situations. Sub-section (1) deals with 'evasion of tax,penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under the Act'.Therefore, evidently, what is contemplated is evasion beforecharging or imposing tax, penalty or interest. That mayinclude wilful suppression in the returns before assessment andcompletion. But sub-section (2) deals with evading 'thepayment of tax, penalty or interest under the Act'. The words'chargeable' or 'imposable' are not there. What sub-section (2)says is 'without prejudice to any penalty that may beimposable on him under any other provision of this Act, bepunishable.....'. Therefore, evidently, sub-section (2) takes incases of tax evasion after 'charging' or 'imposition'. Evasionafter completion of assessment also comes within the operationof the sub-section. We are concerned in these cases with suchalleged evasion. What the Explanation to Section 276C deals with is“wilful attempt to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or imposable under this Act or payment thereof”contemplated by sub-section (1) and not “payment of any tax,penalty or interest under this Act' as contemplated in sub-section (2). Therefore, the Explanation concerns only sub-section (1) and not sub-section (2). Further the Explanation isonly inclusive and not exhaustive. Item (iv) of the Explanationalso makes this position clear. Sub-section (2) is so clear that atany rate it takes in the cases of evasion of tax, penalty orinterest after assessments were made. Avoidance of tax isavoidance of tax liability under some manner as distinguishedfrom evasion of tax whether before or after charging orimposition. It is not illegal as distinguished from penalevasion. Section 276C(2) deals with evasion afterquantification. It becomes applicable only after income isassessed and the assessee attempts to evade payment.” 3.Section 276 C of the Income Tax Act is extracted below forreference : “276C. Wilful attempt to evade tax, etc – (1) If a personwilfully attempts in any manner whatsoever to evade any tax,penalty or interest chargeable [or imposable, or under-reportshis income,] under this Act, he shall, without prejudice to anypenalty that may be [or imposable, or under-reports hisincome,] on him under any other provision of this Act, bepunishable,- (i) in a case where the amount sought to be evaded [or taxon under-reported income] exceeds [twenty-five hundredthousand rupees], with rigorous imprisonment for a termwhich shall not be less than six months but which may extend toseven years and with fine; (ii) in any other case, with rigorous imprisonment for aterm which shall not be less than three months but which mayextend to [two years] and with fine. (2) If a person wilfully attempts in any manner whatsoever toevade the payment of any tax, penalty or interest under this Act, he shall, without prejudice to any penalty that may beimposable on him under any other provision of this Act, bepunishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shallnot be less than three months but which may extend to [twoyears] and shall, in the discretion of the court, also be liable forfine. Explanation – For the purposes of this section, a wilfulattempt to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable orimposable under this Act or the payment thereof shall include acase where any person- (i) has in his possession or control any books of account orother documents (being books of account or other documentsrelevant to any proceeding under this Act) containing a falseentry or statement, or (ii) makes or causes to be made any false entry orstatement in such books of account or other documents; or (iii) wilfully omits or causes to be omitted any relevantentry or statement in such books of account or otherdocuments; or (iv) causes any other circumstance to exist which will havethe effect of enabling such person to evade any tax, penalty orinterest chargeable or imposable under this Act or the paymentthereof.” 4.A mere perusal of the said provision would show that theExplanation was given after sub-section(1) and (2) and not before sub-section(2). It would prima facie show that the legislative intention is tomake the Explanation applicable to both sub-section (1) and (2), otherwise, the Explanation would have been incorporated before sub-section (2). Aconjoint reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) with clauses (i) to (iv) in theExplanation would show that the legislature never intended to exclude sub-section (2) from the operation of Explanation. (iv) causes any other circumstance to exist which will havethe effect of enabling such person to evade any tax, penalty orinterest chargeable or imposable under this Act or the paymentthereof.” 4.A mere perusal of the said provision would show that theExplanation was given after sub-section(1) and (2) and not before sub-section(2). It would prima facie show that the legislative intention is tomake the Explanation applicable to both sub-section (1) and (2), otherwise, the Explanation would have been incorporated before sub-section (2). Aconjoint reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) with clauses (i) to (iv) in theExplanation would show that the legislature never intended to exclude sub-section (2) from the operation of Explanation. 5.Earlier, an issue regarding difference of opinion as to theestimate and non-payment of tax came up for consideration before theApex Court in Prem Dass v. Income Tax Officer [AIR 1999 SC 1079= (1999) 5 SCC 241], and it was held that there should be concealment ofincome or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in order to attractSections 276 C and 277 of the Income TAx Act . Paragraphs 8 and 9 of thesaid judgment are extracted below for reference: “8. wilful attempt to evade any tax, penalty or interestchargeable opposable under the Act under Section 276C is a positive acton the part of the accused which is required to be proved to bring homethe charge against the accused. Similarly a statement made by a personin any verification under the Act can be an offence under Section 277 ifthe person making the same either knew or believe the same to be falseor does not believe to be true. Necessary mens rea, therefore, is requiredto be established by the prosecution to attract the provisions of Section277. We see nothing in Section 132(4)(A) which would establish theingredients of aforesaid two criminal offence contemplated underSections 276C and 277 of the Indian Income Tax Act. It may be noticedat this point of time that the Tribunal while interfering with the penaltyimposed under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act came to a positive findingthat there is no act of concealment on the part of the assessee and he hadreturned the income on estimate basis. The Tribunal, further found thatit is a case purely on difference of opinion as to the estimates and not acase of concealment of income or even furnishing of inaccurateparticulars of income. 9.In the aforesaid premises, the High Court was totally in error ininterfering with the order of acquittal passed by the learned SessionsJudge by an elaborate and well reasoned judgment. We have nohesitation to come to the conclusion that the ingredients of offence underSections 276C and 277 of the Income Tax Act have not been establishedby the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the appellant cannot be convicted of the offence under the said Sections.” (emphasis supplied) 6.In view of the legal position settled by the Apex court in PremDass's case ( supra) , it cannot be held that the legal position laid down bythis Court in G.Viswanathan's case (supra) is good law. In the instantcase, admittedly there is no concealment of any source of income or taxableitem, inclusion of a circumstance aimed to evade tax or furnishing ofinaccurate particulars regarding any assessment or payment of tax. Whatis involved is only a failure on the part of the petitioner to pay the tax intime, which was later on paid after availing installment facility withinterest. The penalty imposed is now pending consideration before theappellate authority. So it would not fall under the mischief of Section276 C of the Income Tax Act. (emphasis supplied) 6.In view of the legal position settled by the Apex court in PremDass's case ( supra) , it cannot be held that the legal position laid down bythis Court in G.Viswanathan's case (supra) is good law. In the instantcase, admittedly there is no concealment of any source of income or taxableitem, inclusion of a circumstance aimed to evade tax or furnishing ofinaccurate particulars regarding any assessment or payment of tax. Whatis involved is only a failure on the part of the petitioner to pay the tax intime, which was later on paid after availing installment facility withinterest. The penalty imposed is now pending consideration before theappellate authority. So it would not fall under the mischief of Section276 C of the Income Tax Act. 7.Yet another argument was also advanced based on the deemingprovision – Section 278 E of the Income Tax Act regarding thepresumption as to existence of culpable mental state on a prosecution forany offence under the Act. It was argued that any failure or non-paymentof tax, penalty or interest must always be construed with the application ofSection 278 E of the Act by presuming a culpable mental state and even anact of failure would stand with the necessary mens rea by virtue of thepresumption available under that section, though it is rebuttable and reliedon Praksh Nath Khanna and Ors. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. [2004 Vol. 266 ITR 1 =(2004) 9 SCC 686] 8. Section 278 E is extracted below for reference : “278E – Presumption as to culpable mental state – (1)In any prosecution for any offence under this Act whichrequires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, thecourt shall presume the existence of such mental state but itshall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he hadno such mental state with respect to the act charged as anoffence in that prosecution. Explanation – In this sub-section, “culpable mental state”includes intention, motive or knowledge of a fact, or belief in,or reason to believe, a fact. (2)For the purposes of this section, a fact is said to beproved only when the court believes it to exist beyondreasonable doubt and not merely when its existence isestablished by a preponderance of probability.” (emphasis supplied) 9.A 'culpable mental state' which can be presumed under Section278E of the Act would come into play only in a prosecution for any offenceunder the Act, when the said offence requires a 'culpable mental state' onthe part of the accused. Section 278 E of the Act is really a Rule ofEvidence regarding existence of mens rea by drawing a presumptionthough rebuttable. That does not mean that the presumption would standapplied even in a case wherein the basic requirements constituting theoffence are not disclosed. The presumption can be applied only when thebasic ingredient which would constitute any offence under the Act isdisclosed. Then only the rule of evidence under Section 278 E of the Actregarding rebuttable presumption as to existence of culpable mental state on the part of accused would come into play. As such there is no scope forapplying the rebuttable presumption under Section 278E of the Act in theinstant case. 10.What is dealt with in Prakash NathKhanna's case is thecriminal liability that can be fastened under Section 276CC of the Actwhen there is wilful failure to furnish return. The expression “failure”used in Section 276 CC of the Act is with respect to submission ofassessment and return and the same cannot be equated with any failure topay the tax in time and the liability under Section 276 C of the Act. Amere failure to pay the amount due (tax, interest or penalty) will not satisfythe requirement which would constitute the offence under Section 276C(2)of the Income Tax Act. Hence the crime registered and the furtherproceedings thereof will not serve any purpose, if it is proceeded further.The same is quashed. 10.What is dealt with in Prakash NathKhanna's case is thecriminal liability that can be fastened under Section 276CC of the Actwhen there is wilful failure to furnish return. The expression “failure”used in Section 276 CC of the Act is with respect to submission ofassessment and return and the same cannot be equated with any failure topay the tax in time and the liability under Section 276 C of the Act. Amere failure to pay the amount due (tax, interest or penalty) will not satisfythe requirement which would constitute the offence under Section 276C(2)of the Income Tax Act. Hence the crime registered and the furtherproceedings thereof will not serve any purpose, if it is proceeded further.The same is quashed. Both the Crl.M.Cs are allowed accordingly. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE sv APPENDIX OF Crl.MC 5669/2020 PETITIONERS'ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1 :TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE 1[st] PETITIONER DATED 22.12.2017. ANNEXURE A2 :TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING PAYMENT OF Rs.2,21,24,640/- ON 31.03.2017. Rs.2,21,24,640/- ON 31.03.2017. ANNEXURE A3 :TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.25,00,000/- ON 27.03.2018. Rs.25,00,000/- ON 27.03.2018. ANNEXURE A4 :TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECT TAX CHALLAN REPORT SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.30,00,000/- ON 13.11.2017. THE PAYMENT OF Rs.30,00,000/- ON 13.11.2017. ANNEXURE A5 :TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.71,95,542/- ON 29.03.2018. Rs.71,95,542/- ON 29.03.2018. ANNEXURE A6 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.20,00,000/- ON 30.04.2018. Rs.20,00,000/- ON 30.04.2018. ANNEXURE A7 :TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.30,00,000/- ON 30.04.2018. Rs.30,00,000/- ON 30.04.2018. ANNEXURE A8 :TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.30,00,000/- ON 17.05.2018. Rs.30,00,000/- ON 17.05.2018. ANNEXURE A9 :TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2018 RECTIFYING THE TAX DUE. ANNEXURE A10 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.06.2018 REQUESTING THE 2[nd] RESPONDENT TO ALLOW THE PETITIONERS TO REMIT THE ARREARS OF TAX IN INSTALMENTS. ANNEXURE A11 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1[st] RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A12 : TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS INCOME TAX LIABILITY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. ANNEXURE A13 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.20,00,000/- ON 31.07.2018. Rs.20,00,000/- ON 31.07.2018. ANNEXURE A14 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.20,00,000/- ON 31.08.2018. Rs.20,00,000/- ON 31.08.2018. ANNEXURE A15 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.25,00,000/- ON 03.10.2018. Rs.25,00,000/- ON 03.10.2018. ANNEXURE A16 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.17,50,000/- ON 15.10.2018. Rs.17,50,000/- ON 15.10.2018. ANNEXURE A17 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.42,50,000/- ON 03.11.2018. Rs.42,50,000/- ON 03.11.2018. ANNEXURE A18 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.40,00,000/- ON 27.11.2018. Rs.40,00,000/- ON 27.11.2018. ANNEXURE A19 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.10,00,000/- ON 30.11.2018. Rs.10,00,000/- ON 30.11.2018. ANNEXURE A20 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.27,00,000/- ON 18.01.2019. Rs.27,00,000/- ON 18.01.2019. ANNEXURE A21 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.23,00,000/- ON 01.02.2019. Rs.23,00,000/- ON 01.02.2019. ANNEXURE A22 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.5,00,000/- ON 01.02.2019. Rs.5,00,000/- ON 01.02.2019. ANNEXURE A23 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF ANNEXURE A18 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.40,00,000/- ON 27.11.2018. Rs.40,00,000/- ON 27.11.2018. ANNEXURE A19 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.10,00,000/- ON 30.11.2018. Rs.10,00,000/- ON 30.11.2018. ANNEXURE A20 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.27,00,000/- ON 18.01.2019. Rs.27,00,000/- ON 18.01.2019. ANNEXURE A21 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.23,00,000/- ON 01.02.2019. Rs.23,00,000/- ON 01.02.2019. ANNEXURE A22 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.5,00,000/- ON 01.02.2019. Rs.5,00,000/- ON 01.02.2019. ANNEXURE A23 : TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.40,00,000/- ON 11.03.2019. ANNEXURE A24: TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF Rs.51,04,245/- ON 28.03.2019. ANNEXURE A25 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.No.2655 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT (ECONOMIC OFFENCES) ERNAKULAM ALONG WITH THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS. ANNEXURE A26 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DATED 11.12.2020. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: NIL // TRUE COPY // Sd/- P.S. TO JUDGE PETITIONERS'ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1TRUE COPY OF THE SECTION 279(1) NOTICE DATED 8.12.2017 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY NECESSARYSANCTION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED FOR LAUNCHING PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 276 C(2)DATED 8.12.2017 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY NECESSARYSANCTION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED FOR LAUNCHING PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 276 C(2) ANNEXURE A2RUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 22.12.2017PETITIONER DATED 22.12.2017 ANNEXURE A3TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING PAYMENT OFRS 77,31,731/- ON 29.4.2017RS 77,31,731/- ON 29.4.2017 ANNEXURE A4TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING PAYMENT OFRS 70,00,000/- ON 23.11.2017RS 70,00,000/- ON 23.11.2017 ANNEXURE A5TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING PAYMENT OFRS 50,00,000/- ON 30.4.2018RS 50,00,000/- ON 30.4.2018 ANNEXURE A6TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING PAYMENT OFRS 5,42,534/- ON 29.3.2018RS 5,42,534/- ON 29.3.2018 ANNEXURE A7TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.6.2018ANNEXURE A8TRUE COPY OF THE TAX DUE IS RECTIFIED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.11.2018ANNEXURE A8TRUE COPY OF THE TAX DUE IS RECTIFIED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.11.2018 ANNEXURE A9TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.6.2018ANNEXURE A10TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.7.2018ANNEXURE A10TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.7.2018 ANNEXURE A11TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS INCOME TAX LIABILITY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO THE PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS INCOME TAX LIABILITY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 ANNEXURE A12TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF RS.5,00,000/- ON 31.7.2018PAYMENT OF RS.5,00,000/- ON 31.7.2018 ANNEXURE A13TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF RS 5,00,000/- ON 31.8.2018PAYMENT OF RS 5,00,000/- ON 31.8.2018 ANNEXURE A14TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF RS 7,50,000/- ON 15.10.2018PAYMENT OF RS 7,50,000/- ON 15.10.2018 ANNEXURE A15TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF RS 7,25,000/- ON 3.11.2018PAYMENT OF RS 7,25,000/- ON 3.11.2018 ANNEXURE A16TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF RS 10,00,000/- ON 30.11.2018PAYMENT OF RS 10,00,000/- ON 30.11.2018ANNEXURE A17TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF RS 10,00,000/- ON 2.2.2019PAYMENT OF RS 10,00,000/- ON 2.2.2019 ANNEXURE A18TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF RS 96,33,145/- ON 28.3.2019PAYMENT OF RS 96,33,145/- ON 28.3.2019 ANNEXURE A19TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF RS 50,00,000/- ON 30.3.2019PAYMENT OF RS 50,00,000/- ON 30.3.2019 ANNEXURE A20 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC 2654 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT (ECONOMIC OFFENCES), ERNAKULAM2019 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT (ECONOMIC OFFENCES), ERNAKULAM ANNEXURE A16TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF RS 10,00,000/- ON 30.11.2018PAYMENT OF RS 10,00,000/- ON 30.11.2018ANNEXURE A17TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF RS 10,00,000/- ON 2.2.2019PAYMENT OF RS 10,00,000/- ON 2.2.2019 ANNEXURE A18TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF RS 96,33,145/- ON 28.3.2019PAYMENT OF RS 96,33,145/- ON 28.3.2019 ANNEXURE A19TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF RS 50,00,000/- ON 30.3.2019PAYMENT OF RS 50,00,000/- ON 30.3.2019 ANNEXURE A20 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC 2654 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT (ECONOMIC OFFENCES), ERNAKULAM2019 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT (ECONOMIC OFFENCES), ERNAKULAM ANNEXURE A21 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DATED 11.12.2020. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DATED 11.12.2020. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: NIL // TRUE COPY // Sd/- P.S. TO JUDGE