By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7245 of 2018 PETITIONER THE KALLADIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. KALLADIKODE POST, PALAKKAD-678 596, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BINOY JOSEPH. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO. 4, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR-680 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-03-2018,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 2015-16. RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 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.7245 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5[th] 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 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appealbefore the second respondent. Ext.P3 is the application forstay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. Thegrievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns thedelay on the part of the second respondent in passing orderson Ext.P3 application for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner inthe writ petition that proceedings have already been initiatedfor realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order. Thepetitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in thisregard, in this writ 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.P3application for stay, within two months from the date of receipt ofa copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to saythat until orders are passed on Ext.P3 application for stay, furtherproceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1assessment order shall be deferred. rsr P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE