Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/27338/2019 Of Fathima Shamna v. In...

Wp(C)/27338/2019 Of Fathima Shamna v. Income Tax Officer

High Court 15 Oct 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/27338/2019 Of Fathima Shamna v. Income Tax Officer
Date of order
15 Oct 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp(C)/27338/2019 Of Fathima Shamna v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2019) 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 A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 23RD ASWINA, 1941 WP(C).No.27338 OF 2019(N) PETITIONER/S: FATHIMA SHAMNAW/O. ABDUL LATHEEF, KAKKIDI PUTHIYAPARAMBIL, MUTTANNUR P.O., PURATHUR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 561. BY ADV. SMT.P.M.SHAHIDA RESPONDENT/S: INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-I, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUR RANGE, TARIFF BAZAAR, OPP. TOWN HALL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676101. OTHER PRESENT: SC, CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON15.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Dated this the 15th day of October 2019 The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the refusal of therespondent to extend the time granted to her husband for replying to thenotice issued to him under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that her husbandis employed abroad and he has not been granted leave by his employer andunder the said circumstances, he will not be able to come to India to file thenecessary returns before the Income Tax Authority in connection with thenotice now received by him. Taking note of the said averments in the writ petition filed by theassessee's wife, and on considering the further submission that the respondentis now proceeding to decide the matter ex parte, I direct that the respondentshall grant a further period of one month from today to the petitioner'shusband for preferring a reply to the notice issued to him under Section 142(1)of Income Tax Act, and for enabling him to file the necessary returns tosubstantiate his stand on merits. It is made clear that if the assessee does notprefer the reply to the notice within the time granted in this judgment, it willbe open to the respondent to proceed with the matter from the stage at whichit presently stands. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petitiontogether with a copy of this judgment, before the respondent, for furtheraction. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT DATED 19.8.2019.EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.9.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
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