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 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6112 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE THADUKKASSERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.7/429,, KERALASSERY P.O., PALAKKAD-678641, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIJAYAKUMARI M.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. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2018,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 2010-11 DATED 15.03.2016.EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.03.2016.EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.04.2016. (true copy) Sd/- P.S. to Judge P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6112 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 23[rd] 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. Aggrieved byExt.P1 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appealbefore the second respondent. Ext.P3 is the application for staypreferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. The grievance ofthe petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the partof the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P3application for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writpetition that proceedings have already been initiated forrealisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order. Thepetitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in thisregard, in this writ petition. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner asalso the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. WPC No.6112/18 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.P3application for stay, within two months from the date of receiptof a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless tosay that until orders are passed on Ext.P3 application for stay,further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered byExt.P1 assessment order shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. tgs