Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/21600/2007 Of Catherine Thomas, Wi...

Wp(C)/21600/2007 Of Catherine Thomas, Wife & Legal Heir Of v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circ

High Court 16 Aug 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/21600/2007 Of Catherine Thomas, Wife & Legal Heir Of v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circ
Date of order
16 Aug 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wp(C)/21600/2007 Of Catherine Thomas, Wife & Legal Heir Of v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circ, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.

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 C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2007 / 25TH SRAVANA 1929 WP(C).No. 21600 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ CATHERINE THOMAS, WIFE AND LEGAL HEIR OF LATE K.T.THOMAS, 1-C AMBER PARK, CANNON SHED ROAD, KOCHI-682011. BY ADV. SMT.NISHA JOHN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682 035. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON(SR.) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 21600 OF 2007 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of August, 2007 JUDGMENT I do not think there is any ground to entertain this Writ Petitionfiled against consequential orders passed by the assessing officer incompliance with the Tribunal's order. If mistake is committed by theOfficer, petitioner can seek rectification under Section 154 of the I.T.Act and if there is no mistake but it is the wrong view taken by theOfficer, petitioner can file appeal, and if appeal is not maintainable, allnon-appealable orders are revisable by the Commissioner underSection 264 of the I.T. Act. In view of the effective alternative remedyavailable to the petitioner before the statutory authorities, I decline toentertain the Writ Petition. Accordingly, W.P. is closed leavingfreedom to the petitioner to pursue statutory remedy. If time for filingany statutory application is already over on account of filing of thisWrit Petition, I direct such authority to entertain it after excluding theperiod of pendency of Writ Petition in this Court, that is from12.7.2007to 16.8.2007. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)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