MATHEW MOOZHAYIL MATHEW, vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court directed that if the petitioner files an application for condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act before the 1st respondent within ten days from the receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, Ext.P10 shall be treated as an application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act. The Court further directed that a decision shall be taken on Ext.P10 as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. The reasoning is based on the suggestion made by the Revenue's counsel to address the issue of delay first. The operative direction is to consider the application for condonation of delay and then the main application if the delay is condoned, within a stipulated timeframe. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Mathew Moozhayil Mathew, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala seeking a direction to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (1st respondent) to consider his application (Ext.P10) for a refund of income tax paid. The respondents are the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, and the Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner is seeking a refund of certain amounts paid as income tax. The Standing Counsel for the respondent department pointed out that the Principal Commissioner can only exercise powers under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act and that the application (Ext.P10) was filed out of time. The department suggested that if the petitioner files an application for condonation of delay, the Principal Commissioner could be directed to decide on the delay and then on the main application if the delay is condoned.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court can direct the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to consider an application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, even if it is filed out of time, by condoning the delay. (Question of law and procedure) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10, an application essentially seeking a refund of income tax paid. The petitioner's implicit contention is that the application should be considered on merits. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Department pointed out that the Principal Commissioner can exercise powers only under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act and that Ext.P10 was filed out of time. The Department suggested that if the petitioner files an application for condonation of delay before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent may be directed to take a decision on the application for condonation of delay and, if the delay is condoned, then on Ext.P10.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P10 application which essentialy is an application seeking refund of certain amounts paid as income tax.
The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Department points out that the Principal Commissioner can exercise powers only under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act and obviously Ext.P10 application is filed out of time. He states that, if the petitioner files an application for condonation of delay in filing Ext.P10 before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent may be directed to take a decision on the application for condonation of delay and if delay is condoned, on Ext.P10 application.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that if the petitioner files an application for condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act before the 1st respondent within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, Ext.P10 shall be treated as an application filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act and a decision shall be taken thereon as 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. GOPINATH P. JUDGE acd
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 264
- Murugaiah Althuri, Chittoor vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, ChittoorITA 2100/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Babu Gundlapalle, Chittoor vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, ChittoorITA 2093/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Thasil Babu, Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 787/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Thasil Babu, Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 786/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Thasil Babu, Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Office…ITA 785/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
