Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/28512/2021 Of Mathew Moozhayil Mat...

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
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