By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 6421 of 2018 PETITIONER THE PALAKKAD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OP. SOCIETY, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, SOBHANA P.K. CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, 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 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER:SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-02-2018,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 2012-13.EXHIBIT P1(A)- COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P1(B)- COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P2- COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P2(A)- COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P2(B)- COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P3- COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P3(A)- COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P3(B)- COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/-PA TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.6421 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27[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. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 series assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 series appeals before the second respondent. Ext.P3 series are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 series appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P3 series applications for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 series orders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also 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 directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 series applications for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that until orders are passed on Ext.P3 series applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 series assessment orders shall be deferred. rsr Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE