By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.k.krishnasmt.meera V.menon
High Court
28 Sep 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.k.krishnasmt.meera V.menon
Date of order
28 Sep 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.k.krishnasmt.meera V.menon, the High Court (2018) decided the matter.
Decision: This writ petition is disposed of as above.
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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
FRIDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 6TH ASWINA, 1940
WP(C).No. 31693 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
SHEEJA VIJAYAPRASADTHAYYIL SREEVILAS, NANGIARKULANGARA P.O, ALAPPUZHA - 690 513
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.K.KRISHNASMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
1THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXINTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003
2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 036.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.JOSEPH JOSEPH, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, challenging an order granting stay of demand by
the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, has approached this Court. Thepetitioner's case is that the assessment was ex parte and one moreopportunity should be given.
2. Anyhow, the petitioner invoked the appellate remedy. The petitioner
was only directed to pay 20% of the demand as a condition for stay. Therewas a request on the side of the petitioner to grant instalment facility to pay20%.
Therefore, the petitioner shall be permitted to pay 20% of the demand inten equal monthly instalments starting from 10.10.2018 followed by everymonth.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 DATED 27.12.2017.
True Copy P.S to Judge
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.