By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 5744 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE AKATHETHARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. F-1514, AKATHETHARA POST, PALAKKAD-678008, REPRESENTE DBY ITS SECRETARY, SUBHA VARMA P 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.2, PALAKKAD-678001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680001 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-02-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11EXHIBIT P1(A): COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE APPEAL FIELD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P3: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P3(A): COPY OF STATE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT // true copy // PS TO JUDGE. Kvs/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.5744 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of February, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (theAct) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P1series assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 seriesappeals before the second respondent. Ext.P3 series are theapplications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 seriesappeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petitionconcerns the delay on the part of the second respondent inpassing orders on Ext.P3 series applications for stay. It is allegedby the petitioner in the writ petition that proceedings havealready been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered byExt.P1 series orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriatedirections in this regard, in this writ petition. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner asalso the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directingthe second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 seriesapplications for stay, within two months from the date of receiptof a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to saythat until orders are passed on Ext.P3 series applications for stay,further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered byExt.P1 series assessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. Kvs/- // true copy //