Sreedharan Manoj Kumar vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 27414

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ziyad Rahman A.A., J
Sreedharan Manoj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 14008 OF 2026

Important Points

Writ petition not maintainable if statutory appellate remedies available under Income Tax Act.

Subject

Taxation - Income Tax - Writ against Assessment

Act Referred

Income Tax Act, 1961: S.142, S.143, S.147

Headnote

The assessee challenged an assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 and the appellate order confirming it under the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment year 2010-2011. Key facts include issuance of notice under Section 142, assessment on 27.11.2018, and appellate rejection. The court found that the petitioner had availed statutory appeal and possessed further appellate remedy before the Tribunal. Issues framed: whether writ petition is maintainable post-first appeal. Ratio: Courts refrain from entertaining writs when effective statutory remedies exist. Writ petition dismissed without prejudice to further statutory rights, with recovery stayed for one month.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.Mohammed Razali K.A, Shri. Hrithwik D. Namboothiri, Smt. Reshmi U.N., Shri.Ganesh Chandran S.
For the Respondents: Shri.Harikumar.G.Nair, SC

Table of Content
1. assessee appealed rejected assessment order. (Para 1)
2. writ dismissed; statutory remedies available. (Para 2)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Income Tax Act pertaining to the year 2010-2011. As against Ext.P2 assessment order, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the 1^st Appellate Authority. Now as per Ext.P3, the said appeal has been rejected, by confirming the order of assessment.

2. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner challenging Ext.P2 assessment order and Ext.P3 appellate order. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised various contentions including that Ext.P2 order of assessment is barred by limitation, I am of the view that since the petitioner had already invoked the statutory remedy of appeal against the said assessment order, it is not necessary for this Court to entertain this writ petition at this juncture. Petitioner is having an alternate and effective remedy as against Ext.P3 by submitting an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal as well.

In such circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedies available, this writ petition is dismissed. However, as the petitioner wants time to invoke the statutory remedies, it is ordered that the recovery proceedings based on Exts.P2 and P3 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month.