By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6862 of 2018 PETITIONER: THE KANHIKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KANHIKULAM P.O., PALAKKAD-678 596, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.SASIDHARAN. 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.1, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680 001. R1 & R2 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 1/3/2018 WP(C).No. 6862 of 2018 (G) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14, DATED 24/03/2016EXHIBIT P1(a) COPY OF RECTIFIED ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 02/05/2017EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 01/06/2017EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 08/04/2016EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 07/06/2016. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL /TRUE COPY/P.S.TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. ---------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.6862 of 2018---------------------------------------------Dated this the 1[st] day of March, 2018 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (theAct) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved byExt.P1 series assessment orders, the petitioner preferredExt.P2 appeal before the second respondent. Ext.P3 is theapplication for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2appeal. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petitionconcerns the delay on the part of the second respondent inpassing orders on Ext.P3 application for stay. It is allegedby the petitioner in the writ petition that proceedings havealready been initiated for realisation of the amounts coveredby Ext.P1 series assessment orders. The petitioner,therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in thiswrit petition. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioneras also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. WPC 6862/18 -:2:- Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writpetition directing the second respondent to take a decisionon Ext.P3 application for stay, within two months from thedate of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Orderedaccordingly. This shall be done untrammelled by the orders, ifany, passed by the competent authorities under the Act inexercise of their powers under sub-section (6) of Section 220 ofthe Act. Needless to say that until orders are passed onExt.P3 application for stay, further proceedings forrealisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 seriesassessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- vps 1/3 P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE /True Copy/PS to Judge