By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menon Smt.meera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/12TH BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 26538 of 2015 (N) ------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- M/S.TRICHUR TECHNO PARK (P)LTD. 9/256, SIDCO BUILDING, INDUSTRIAL ESTATEPERINGANDOOR PO, ATHANI, THRISSUR- 680 581REPRESENTED BY T.R. RAGHULAL, MANAGING DIRECTOR BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1.THE INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD No.1(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ST NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001WARD No.1(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ST NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 001 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)ERNAKULAM R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26538 of 2015 (N) -------------------------------------------APPENDIX das // True copy //PA to Judge A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. =========================================== W.P.(C). No. 26538 of 2015 ===================================================== Dated this the 3[rd] day of September, 2015 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order passed under the IncomeTax Act, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 staypetition before the 2[nd] respondent. The grievance of the petitioneris that even before considering the stay petition, the respondentsare taking steps to recover the amounts confirmed against thepetitioner by Ext.P1 order, by issuing Ext.P4 demand notice. 2.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner as also the learned Government Pleader appearing forthe respondents. 3.It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for therespondent that the appeal is seen filed belatedly in that it hasbeen filed beyond the period of 60 days contemplated under thestatute. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit thathe will file a petition for condonation of delay before the 2[nd]respondent and, while issuing directions to the 2[nd] respondent, thisCourt may issue directions for consideration of the delaycondonation application as well. W.P.(C). No. 26538 of 2015 4.On a consideration of the facts and circumstances ofthe case and the submissions made across the bar, I dispose thewrit petition with the following direction: The 2[nd] respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P3stay petition, and the delay condonation application to be filed bythe petitioner, within a period of one month from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Imake it clear that, further proceedings for recovery of amountsconfirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order, shallbe kept in abeyance till such time as 2[nd] respondent passes orders,as directed and communicates the same to the petitioner. Sd/-A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE das