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 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7242 of 2018 PETITIONER THE KARAKURISSI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD., 229, KARAKURISSI, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD 678595, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.P.RAVEENDRAN BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 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 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-03-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 23.03.2016 RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 23.03.2016 EXHIBIT P1 (a) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 EXHIBIT P2 COP OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 18.04.2016 2ND RESPONDENT 18.04.2016 EXHIBIT P2 (a) COP OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 12.01.2018 2ND RESPONDENT 12.01.2018 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 12.01.2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 12.01.2018 EXHIBIT P3 (a) COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 18.04.2016 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 18.04.2016 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL rsr //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7242 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5[th] day of 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 preferredExt.P2 series appeals before the second respondent. Ext.P3series are the applications for stay preferred by the petitionerin Ext.P2 series appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in thewrit petition 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 asalso 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. P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE