By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7057 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE CHITTUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. CHITTUR, PALAKKAD-678 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, C.GIRIJADEVI. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.5, PALAKKAD-678001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680 001. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 15.3.2016.EXHIBIT P1(A): COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 15.3.2016.EXHIBIT P1(B): COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2012-13 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 16.3.2017.EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016.EXHIBIT P2(A): COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016.EXHIBIT P2(B): COPY OF APPEAL FIELD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016.EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016.EXHIBIT P3(A): COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016.EXHIBIT P3(B): COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2016. (true copy) Sd/- P.S. to Judge P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7057 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 2[nd] March, 2018. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act(the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved byExt.P1 series assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2series appeals before the second respondent. Ext.P3 series arethe applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2series appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writpetition concerns the delay on the part of the secondrespondent in passing orders on Ext.P3 series applications forstay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition thatproceedings have already been initiated for realisation of theamounts covered by Ext.P1 series orders. The petitioner,therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in thiswrit petition. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as WPC No.7057 of 2018 also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of thecase, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitiondirecting the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3series applications for stay, within two months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly.Needless to say that until orders are passed on Ext.P3 seriesapplications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of theamounts covered by Ext.P1 series assessment orders shall bedeferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. tgs