Case LawHigh Court › By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon

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
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan