By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon
High Court
23 Feb 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon
Date of order
23 Feb 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon, the High Court (2018) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
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. 6095 of 2018
PETITIONER(S)
THE NAGARIPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
NAGARIPURAM, MANNUR, PALAKKAD -678 642,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.V.NANDAKUMARAN.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.2,
PALAKKAD -678 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR -680 001.
R 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
//TRUE COPY//SD/-P.A. TO JUDGE
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
================
W.P.(C.) No. 6095 of 2018
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd 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 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.
Sd/-
SKS
P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.