Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/25063/2007 Of K.hussain v. The Joi...

Wp(C)/25063/2007 Of K.hussain v. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 20 Sep 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/25063/2007 Of K.hussain v. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
20 Sep 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp(C)/25063/2007 Of K.hussain v. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.

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 ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 29TH BHADRA 1929 WP(C).No. 25063 of 2007(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KADALAYI HUSSAIN, S/O.KADALAYI AHAMED, KADALAYI HOUSE, VALAVANNUR POST, VIA KALPAKANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.HARIS, S/O.HYDROSSKUTTY, P.O.POOKAYIL, TIRUR AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PALAKKAD RANGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. V.NARAYANAN, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ON 20/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 25063 OF 2007==================== Dated this the 20[th] day of September, 2007 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims that he had let out the building to apartnership firm. Subsequently partners of the firm had produceda deed before the Income Tax Authorities, which indicated thatthe petitioner is also a partner. Thereupon notice was issued tothe petitioner. At that stage, contending that the signature in thepartnership deed was forged, petitioner filed Ext.P2representation before the 1[st] respondent to take action againstthose who have produced the alleged fabricated document.Praying to direct the authorities to take action on Ext.P2, this writpetition was filed 2.Today the learned standing counsel appearing for therespondents submit on instructions that the Income TaxDepartment has decided to ignore the partnership deed and notto proceed against the petitioner on that basis. In view of this,petitioner cannot insist that Income Tax Department should take Today the learned standing counsel appearing for the WPC 25063/07 : 2 : action against those who have produced that deed, based on hiscomplaint. If the petitioner is so advised, he will be at liberty toproceed against those who have allegedly fabricated thedocument. With that liberty, this writ petition is closed. Rp 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.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 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