By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6261 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE KERALA UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD KERALA UNIVERSITY BUILDING, PALAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033, REPRESENTED BY SAJ..S.V. SECRETARY BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.S(1), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, 1ST FLOOR, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 R BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-02-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6261 of 2018 (G) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P3: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P3: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENTRESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NILRESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL SKS //TRUE COPY// SD/-P.A. TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.6261 of 2018 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26[th] day of February, 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. The selfassessment made by the petitioner has been revised underSection 143(3) of the Act as per Ext.P1 order. Aggrieved byExt.P1 order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before theappellate authority namely, the second respondent. Ext.P3 isthe appeal preferred by the petitioner. Ext.P4 is the applicationfor stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P3 appeal. In themeanwhile, the petitioner approached the assessing authorityfor stay, invoking sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Act. It isstated by the petitioner that though the assessing authoritygranted the stay sought for by the petitioner, directed thepetitioner to pay 20% of the demand raised pursuant to Ext.P1order. The petitioner though sought a review of the said order before the third respondent, in terms of Ext.P5 order, the thirdrespondent affirmed the order passed by the first respondent.Ext.P5 order is under challenge in the writ petition. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner asalso the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of thiscase, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitiondirecting the second respondent to pass orders on Ext.P4application for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P3 appeal.Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within two months fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, untrammelled byExt.P5 order passed by the third respondent. Needless to say thatuntil orders are passed on Ext.P4 application preferred by thepetitioner in Ext.P3 appeal, further proceedings for the realisationof the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order shall be deferred. Sd/- SKS P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE