Wp(C)/29153/2022 Of Betty Varghese v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant/Commissioner Of Incometax/Income Tax Officer
High Court
01 Dec 2022 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/29153/2022 Of Betty Varghese v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant/Commissioner Of Incometax/Income Tax Officer
Date of order
01 Dec 2022
Assessment year(s)
2015-16
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/29153/2022 Of Betty Varghese v. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant/Commissioner Of Incometax/Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2022) 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 GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 1 DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 29153 OF 2022
PETITIONER
1BETTY VARGHESED/O. JACOB VARGHESEAGED 36 YEARSMANKOOTTATHIL VEEDU, KUMMALLOOR ROAD,KOIPADU,CHATHANNOOR,KOLLAM, PIN - 691572BY ADVS.MARTHANDA VARMA PANDALAI.KS.HEMALATHA
RESPONDENTS :
1ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT/COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX/INCOME TAX OFFICERNATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT,DELHI, PIN - 1100012INCOME TAX OFFICERINCOME TAX OFFICE,WARD-2,RAILWAY STATION ROAD,KOLLAM, PIN - 6910013INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD -13( 3),HYDERABAD, PIN - 500084BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 01[st] day of December, 2022
The petitioner has approached this Court being
aggrieved by the fact that while finalising theassessment of the petitioner for assessment year2015-16, the Assessing Officer has not given credit tothe amount of Self assessment Tax available to thepetitioner. It is also submitted that the assessmentwas completed without giving to the petitioner aproper opportunity and without considering the returnof income filed by the petitioner.
2. When this matter is taken up for considerationtoday, it is submission of the learned counsel for thepetitioner that there will be no demand against thepetitioner if proper credit is given to the SelfAssessment Tax paid by the petitioner. It is submittedthat the petitioner will therefore be satisfied with adirection being given to the Assessing Authority (2[nd]
respondent) to give credit to the Self Assessment Tax
paid by the petitioner for assessment year 2015-16.
3. The learned counsel appearing for therespondent Department states that he has noobjection in such a direction being issued to the 2[nd]respondent.
Accordingly, this writ petition will stand disposedof directing the 2[nd] respondent to give credit for allamounts paid by the petitioner as Self AssessmentTax in respect of assessment year 2015-16 and toproceed to recover any amount due in terms of Ext.P8order of assessment only if any demand exists aftergiving credit to the amount of Self Assessment Taxpaid by the petitioner.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29153/2022
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1NOTICE U/S.148EXHIBIT P2NOTICE U/S 144EXHIBIT P3SHOW CAUSE NOTICEEXHIBIT P4REPLY LETTER BY PETITIONEREXHIBIT P5ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RETURNEXHIBIT P6COPY OF TAX COMPUTATIONEXHIBIT P7COPY OF CHALANEXHIBIT P8ASSESSMENT ORDEREXHIBIT P9PENALTY NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C)EXHIBIT P10PENALTY NOTICE U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE IT ACT DT12-3-2022EXHIBIT P11PENALTY NOTICE U/S 271F OF THE IT ACT DT.12-3-2022EXHIBIT P12DEMAND NOTICE U/S 156 OF THE IT ACT DT.12-3-2022
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A. TO JUDGE
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.