Aanjali Sandeep Shettyaged 37 Yearsbajaj Exotica Apartments, B Block v. Menonmeera V.menonr.sreejithk.krishna
High Court
09 Mar 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Aanjali Sandeep Shettyaged 37 Yearsbajaj Exotica Apartments, B Block v. Menonmeera V.menonr.sreejithk.krishna
Date of order
09 Mar 2023
Assessment year(s)
2011-12
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Aanjali Sandeep Shettyaged 37 Yearsbajaj Exotica Apartments, B Block v. Menonmeera V.menonr.sreejithk.krishna, the High Court (2023) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
THURSDAY, THE 9 DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1944WP(C) NO. 26900 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
RESPONDENT:
AANJALI SANDEEP SHETTYAGED 37 YEARSBAJAJ EXOTICA APARTMENTS, B BLOCK 1006,OPPOSITE MORE SUPERMARKET, MANAGALORE, PIN - 575005BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENONR.SREEJITHK.KRISHNA
THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX/INCOME TAX OFFICERNATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN - 100001BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON09.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R. RAVI, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.26900 of 2022------------------------------------Dated this the 09[th] day of March, 2023JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court
challenging an assessment on the ground that thereis non compliance with the requirement under Section144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that he is notput on notice.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of therespondent. The petitioner has filed reply affidavit. Onreading of the statement and reply affidavit as well asthe contents in the writ petition, it is seen that thereis serious dispute regarding the manner in which thecommunications were sent and the question whetherthey have been received, which are all not matterswhich can be gone into in a proceedings under Article226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has an
WPC No.26900 of 2022
alternate remedy of filing an appeal against theassessment.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition isdisposed of directing the petitioner to approachstatutory authority with an appeal placing thecontentions regarding the lack of proper notice andthe appellate authority shall consider and passnecessary orders. The appeal, if filed within twoweeks from today, shall be treated as one filed withinthe period of limitation.
SKP/09-03
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26900/2022
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:EXHIBIT P1
EXHIBIT P2
RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS:EXHIBIT R(B)
EXHIBIT R (A)
EXHIBIT R(C)EXHIBIT R(D)
COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 15-03-2022COPYOF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DTD. 24-03-2022
TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER PRINT OUT SHOWING THEDETAILS OF SMS ALERTS AND EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS SENT TO THE REGISTERED MOBILE NUMBER AND REGISTERED EMAIL ID OF THE PETITIONER
TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF USER PROFILE ADMINISTRATION IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERTRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR AY 2011-12TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE REGISTER OF TRACK CONSIGNMENT OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT
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.