Case LawHigh Court › Rp/183/2008 Of P.b.sivadasan v. The Inco...

Rp/183/2008 Of P.b.sivadasan v. The Income Tax Officer

High Court 18 Jul 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Rp/183/2008 Of P.b.sivadasan v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
18 Jul 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Rp/183/2008 Of P.b.sivadasan v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2008) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Accordingly the review petition is allowed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 183 of 2008(T) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.28518/2001 Dated 29/08/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION: ------------------------------------------------------------------- P.B. SIVADASAN, S/O. BALABHADRAN, PANICKASSERIL, BEACH WARD, ALAPPUZHA-12. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ALAPPUZHA. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-3. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM. 4. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECTOR TAXES, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT FOR R1-4 SRI. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 28518 OF 2001 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J ============== R.P.No.183 of 2008 inO.P.No.28518 of 2001 ==================== Dated this the 18[th] day of July, 2008. O R D E R Adv. Sri. Geroge K.George took notice for the respondents. The counsel for the review petitioner submits that the writpetition is not infructuous and it happened to be dismissed asinfructuous for want of proper representation from the side of thepetitioner. So he prays the judgment may be reviewed and hemay be given a chance to argue the matter on merits. 2.I heard the learned counsel for the respondents also. 3.I feel that it is only proper that the O.P. should be heard and disposed of on merits. Accordingly the review petition is allowed. The O.P.restored to file. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE bkn/-
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan