By Advs.harisankar v. Menonmeera V.menon
High Court
17 Nov 2021 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.harisankar v. Menonmeera V.menon
Date of order
17 Nov 2021
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In By Advs.harisankar v. Menonmeera V.menon, the High Court (2021) decided the matter.
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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRANWEDNESDAY, THE 17 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1943WP(C) NO. 25520 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
KRISHNAMOORTHY RAJENDRAN, PROPRIETOR,
PROPRIETOR, HOTEL KAIRALI TOWERS,
NEAR STADIUM BUS STAND, COIMBATORE ROAD,
PALAKKAD-678001.
BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1THE ADDITIONAL/ JOINT/ DEPUTY/ ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICERNATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI-110001.
2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI-110001.
SRI NAVANEETH.SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON17.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the
recovery steps being taken against him, pursuant to Ext.P1assessment order, contending that he has already preferredExt.P2 Appeal and Ext.P3 Stay Petition before the 2ndrespondent – Commissioner of Income Tax. He alleges thateven though Exts.P2 and P3 are still pending, recovery actionunder Ext.P1 is being taken forward and that this is illegal andunlawful.
2.In response to the afore submissions of
Smt.K.Krishna – learned counsel for the petitioner, thelearned Standing Counsel for the respondents – Sri.NavaneethN. Nath, submitted that there is no legal impediment for the2nd respondent to take up Ext.P3 Stay Petition and dispose itof in two months time.
Taking note of the afore submissions, I order this Writ
Petition and direct the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P3 StayPetition of the petitioner and dispose it of, after affording himan opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in anappropriate order/proceedings thereon as expeditiously as ispossible, but not later than two months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise iscompleted and resultant order communicated to the petitioner,all further action for recovery pursuant to Ext.P1 will standdeferred.
RR
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRANJUDGE
PETITIONER EXHIBITSExhibit P1
COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 DATED 28.09.2021.
Exhibit P2
COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.10.2021.COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.11.2021.
Exhibit P3
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.