By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon
High Court
09 Mar 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon
Date of order
09 Mar 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 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1939
WP(C).No. 7987 of 2018
PETITIONER(S)
THE MANNARKKAD CO-OP AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD 678582,
BANK LTD. MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD 678582, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K. KRISHNAPRASAD
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
SMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PALAKKAD INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.1, PALAKKAD 6780012. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR 680001
R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2018,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. 7987 of 2018
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 9th day of March, 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 preferred Ext.P2series appeals before the second respondent. Ext.P3 series arethe applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2series appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writpetition 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 the
case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directingthe second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 seriesapplications for stay, within two months from the date of receiptof a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to saythat until orders are passed on Ext.P3 series applications for stay,further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered byExt.P1 series assessment orders shall be deferred.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR,
JUDGE.
SKS
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.