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. 5752 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE PUDUPPARIYARAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. F-1509 PUDUPPARIYARAM P.O, PALAKKAD - 678 731, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VANAJA T.K. 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 - 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 21-02-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITSEXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11.EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. // true copy // PS TO JUDGE Kvs/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.5752 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(the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. The selfassessment made by the petitioner under the Act has beenrevised as per Ext.P1 order in terms of Section 143(3) of theAct. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2appeal. There was a delay of 27 days in filing the appeal. Thepetitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.P3 application forcondonation of the said delay. The petitioner preferred Ext.P4application for stay also in Ext.P2 appeal. The grievance of thepetitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part ofthe appellate authority in considering the application forcondonation of delay as also the application for stay. 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 WPC.No.5752 of 2018 case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitiondirecting the second respondent to consider and pass orders onExt.P3 application preferred by the petitioner for condonation ofdelay in filing Ext.P2 appeal. Ordered accordingly. This shallbe done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis judgment. Needless to say that if the delay in filing theappeal is condoned, orders shall also be passed on Ext.P4application for stay within the aforesaid time limit. Needlessalso to say that until orders are passed on the application forstay or the delay petition, as the case may be, furtherproceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1order shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. Kvs/- // true copy //