Wp(C)/19592/2021 Of P. K. Raju v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
20 Sep 2021 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/19592/2021 Of P. K. Raju v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
20 Sep 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp(C)/19592/2021 Of P. K. Raju v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2021) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Hence, reserving the remedy of the petitioner before thestatutory authority concerned, the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 20 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 29TH BHADRA, 1943WP(C) NO. 19592 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
P. K. RAJU,AGED 65 YEARSS/O. KURIAN, ARBEE AGENCIES, KARIPPADAM P. O, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM - 686 605.
BY ADVS.SRI. LEEJOY MATHEW.V.SRI. SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA
RESPONDENTS:
1THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, COCHIN - 682 018.2THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE AND TPS, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is challenging Exts.P5 and P7. At the outset
itself the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents,Sri.Jose Joseph points out that, Ext.P7 is only a notice underSection 143(2) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act,proposing to re-open the assessment proceedings.
2.It is true that Ext.P7 is only a notice. Petitioner canat this stage appear before the officer concerned and invite anorder after filing the necessary objections. The writ petition istherefore premature and the remedy under Article 226 is notto be invoked at this stage. When alternative remedy exist,Article 226 is not to be invoked. Since there is an effectivealternative remedy available and the invocation of jurisdictionof this Court is too premature, the writ petition is only to bedismissed.
Hence, reserving the remedy of the petitioner before thestatutory authority concerned, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMASJUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC 156 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SEC 143(3) DATED 11.09.2017.ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SEC 143(3) DATED 11.09.2017.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAYER COUNTERFOIL DATED 13.10.2017.13.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S.154 DATED 23.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P4A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13.02.2019.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S. 148 DATED 23.03.2021.23.03.2021.
EXHIBIT P6A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CONFIRMING FILING OF RETURN.FILING OF RETURN.
EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.07.2021 ISSUEDU/S. 143(2) R/W SEC 147.U/S. 143(2) R/W SEC 147.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.
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.