Crl.mc/960/2015 Of P.d.abraham Alias Appachan v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
07 Apr 2021 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Crl.mc/960/2015 Of P.d.abraham Alias Appachan v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
07 Apr 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Crl.mc/960/2015 Of P.d.abraham Alias Appachan v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2021) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: This court confirmed the order imposingpenalty by reversing the order passed by the appellateauthority which was challenged before the Apex Court inan SLP, wherein the order was set aside for re-fixingthe liability and remanded back to this court and it ispending consideration.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943
Crl.MC.No.960 OF 2015(H)
IN CC 163/2014 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E&O),ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
P.D.ABRAHAM ALIAS APPACHAN,SWARGACHITRA, JAIL ROAD, CALICUT - 673 001, KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SMT.DENNIS VARGHESE SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SMT.P.VANDANA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEW ANNEXE BUILDING (NORTH BLOCK), MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE,REPRESENTED BY STANDING COUNSEL.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The challenge is against the prosecution launchedby the Income Tax Department under Section 276C of theIncome Tax Act. It is submitted that the order ofassessment imposing penalty was brought under challengein an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal and beforethis court. This court confirmed the order imposingpenalty by reversing the order passed by the appellateauthority which was challenged before the Apex Court inan SLP, wherein the order was set aside for re-fixingthe liability and remanded back to this court and it ispending consideration. The prosecution launched underSection 276C will stand stayed till the disposal of thematter by this court based on the remand by the ApexCourt.
Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly with thatdirection.
DMR/-
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1COPY OF ORDER DATED 29/07/2002 GIVING EFFECT TO ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL IT (S & S)A NO. 1/COCH/2000.
ANNEXURE A2COPY OF PENALTY ORDER DATED 28/11/2002.ANNEXURE A3COPY OF ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN IT (S & S) NO. 14/COCH/2000 DATED 22/09/2006.
ANNEXURE A4COPY OF ORDER DATED 08/08/2012 GIVING EFFECT TO ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN ITA 177/2008 DATED 10/02/2012.
ANNEXURE A5COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26/03/2014 FILED BEFORE THE ADDL.CJM (EO) ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE A6COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DATED 04/08/2014 IN SLP NOS. 894, 895& 896/2013.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.