Wp(C)/28512/2021 Of Mathew Moozhayil Mathew v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
28 Jun 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/28512/2021 Of Mathew Moozhayil Mathew v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
28 Jun 2022
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/28512/2021 Of Mathew Moozhayil Mathew v. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2022) decided the matter.
Decision: The writ petition is disposed of as above. acd sd/- GOPINATH P.JUDGE PETITIONER EXHIBITS
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 GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 28 DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 28512 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
MATHEW MOOZHAYIL MATHEW,AGED 71 YEARSS/O.THOMAS MOOZHAYIL MATHEW, 11D, ABAD MARINE PLAZA, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM-682 020.BY ADV S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
RESPONDENTS:
1PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(INTERNATIONAL TAX 2(2)(1), DR.S.P.MUKHERJEE CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 002.2DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE-560 500.3COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARAIKKAMURI, ERNAKULAM-682 011.BY ADVS.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON28.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the1[st] respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 application whichessentialy is an application seeking refund of certain amounts paid asincome tax.
2.The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Departmentpoints out that the Principal Commissioner can exercise powers onlyunder Section 264 of the Income Tax Act and obviously Ext.P10application is filed out of time. He states that, if the petitioner files anapplication for condonation of delay in filing Ext.P10 before the 1[st]respondent, the 1[st] respondent may be directed to take a decision on theapplication for condonation of delay and if delay is condoned, on Ext.P10application.
3.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Idirect that if the petitioner files an application for condonation of delay infiling the application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act before the1[st] respondent within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copyof this judgment, Ext.P10 shall be treated as an application filed underSection 264 of the Income Tax Act and a decision shall be taken thereonas expeditiously as possible and at any rate within three months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
acd
sd/-
GOPINATH P.JUDGE
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
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.