Case LawHigh Court › By Adv. Sri.harisankar v. Menon

By Adv. Sri.harisankar v. Menon

High Court 12 Jul 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Adv. Sri.harisankar v. Menon
Date of order
12 Jul 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In By Adv. Sri.harisankar v. Menon, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.

Decision: The appeal is disposed of with the aboveobservation.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 WA.No. 958 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17149/2011 Dated 05/07/2011 APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------ S.ASHOK KUMAR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, 3RD FLOOR, AISWARYA BUILDINGS, VALANJAMBALAM, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), ERNAKULAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOCHI-11. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. GEORGE MECHERIL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. NO. 958 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard the counsel for the appellant. The appeal is filed against thejudgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the orderpassed by the Assessing Officer on the application filed by the appellant forkeeping the demand in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. TheAssessing Officer directed payment of 50% in easy instalments. Thelearned Single Judge observed that even from this Court, the appellantwould not get a better order in an appeal pending case. We do not find anyground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.However, the conditional order passed by the officer will not stand in theway of the appellant in moving the appellate authority for hearing theappeal at an early date. The appeal is disposed of with the aboveobservation. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on account of filing W.A. 958/2011 of the writ petition before this Court, there is delay in payment of twoinstalments. We do not think the officer will decline to accept the delayedpayments which the appellant can pay before the officer at the earliest. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,(JUDGE). P.S. GOPINATHAN,(JUDGE) knc/-
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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