M/S. Elias & Co.chakkiath Joseph Antony. By Advs.harisankar v. Menonmeera V.menonr.sreejithk.krishna
High Court
20 Mar 2023 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
M/S. Elias & Co.chakkiath Joseph Antony. By Advs.harisankar v. Menonmeera V.menonr.sreejithk.krishna
Date of order
20 Mar 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S. Elias & Co.chakkiath Joseph Antony. By Advs.harisankar v. Menonmeera V.menonr.sreejithk.krishna, the High Court (2023) decided the matter under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act.
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 T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 20 DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 9298 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
M/S. ELIAS & CO.CHAKKIATH JOSEPH ANTONY. BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENONR.SREEJITHK.KRISHNA
BASIN ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
PIN - 682031
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
RESPONDENTS:
1THE INCOME TAX OFFICERI.S. PRESS ROAD, KOCHI, PIN - 6820182NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE
WARD1(1), NON-CORPORATE, C.R. BUILDING,
DELHI, PIN - 110001
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF
INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON20.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W. P. (C). No. 9298 of 2023
--------------------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of March, 2023
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking interference ofthe orders passed by the appellate authority. The petitioner had filed anappeal against the assessment order. The petitioner was asked toupload certain documents, which was done. Subsequently, thepetitioner was given another intimation directing them to producecertain additional documents. The petitioner had sought time as perExt.P6. However, time has been sought by means of a letter and suchapplications will not be entertained in appeals, which are decidedthrough the National Faceless Appeal Centre. It is in the abovecircumstances, that the order is issued; submits the Standing Counselfor the respondents. The petitioner has an alternate remedy ofpreferring an appeal against the appellate order.
This writ petition is hence closed without prejudice to the right ofthe petitioner to prefer an appeal against the appellate order.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI
JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 9298 OF 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9298/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1
COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 DTD.
29-03-2016
Exhibit P2COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM DTD. 28-04-2016
Exhibit P3
COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 250 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 28-12-2022
Exhibit P4
COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UPLOADING OF DOCUMENTS IN THE PORTAL BY THE PETITIONER 03-01-2023
Exhibit P5
COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 250 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 12-01-2023
Exhibit P6COPY OF LETTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 19-01-2023
Exhibit P7
COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 30-01-2023
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.