By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 5736 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE TATTAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD CHITTUR ROAD, METTUPALAYAM, TATTAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD-678 102, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, R.GRACY. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD NO.2, PALAKKAD-678001. 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 21-02-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 20.12.2016.EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.1.2017.EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.2.2016. // true copy // PS TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.5736 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21[st] day of February, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (theAct) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Ext.P1assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal beforethe second respondent. Ext.P3 is the application for staypreferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. The grievance of thepetitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part ofthe second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P3 application forstay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition thatproceedings have already been initiated for realisation of theamounts covered by Ext.P1 order. The petitioner, therefore,seeks appropriate directions in this regard, 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 petition WPC.No.5736 of 2018 directing 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. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. Kvs/-