Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/20882/2012 Of Ajith K.mangatt v. T...

Wp(C)/20882/2012 Of Ajith K.mangatt v. The Income Tax Officer

High Court 10 Sep 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/20882/2012 Of Ajith K.mangatt v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
10 Sep 2012
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wp(C)/20882/2012 Of Ajith K.mangatt v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.

Decision: Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

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 ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/19TH BHADRA 1934 WP(C).No. 20882 of 2012 (I) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):------------- AJITH K.MANGATT, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KONNALKUTTY, RESIDING AT 4/184, MANGATT HOUSE OCHANTHURATHU, KOCHI-8. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(5), ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 002. WARD-3(5), ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 002. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-2) ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 016. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ VPV P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC,J ---------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.20882 of 2012 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10[th ] day of September, 2012 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks an order for the expeditious disposal ofExt.P4 appeal filed against Ext.P3 assessment oder. 2. However, it is seen that by Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner was ordered to pay 50% of thedemand in instalments for not treating him as an assessee indefault. That amount was to be paid in instalments and out ofRs.29 lakhs that was payable, the petitioner has already paid13.5 lakhs. It is at that stage, this writ petition has been filedand the obvious intention of the petitioner is to get the appealitself decided without paying the balance due under Ext.P4order of the first respondent. As at present, except Ext.P4 there is nothing else exonerating the petitioner from discharging the liability.Therefore, so long as Ext.P4, is in force, the petitioner shouldcomply with the same. In that view, this Court can only directthat subject to the petitioner complying with Ext.P4, the appealwill be disposed of by the appellate authority on an expeditiousbasis. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
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