By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.k.krishnasmt.meera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 20TH VAISAKHA, 1941 WP(C).No. 13367 of 2019 PETITIONER: THE MANNARKKAD CO-OPERATIVEAGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED, NO. P 934, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD 678 582, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINIMOL. K.,AGED 51 W/O. ANIL KUMAR. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.K.KRISHNASMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 4, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD 678 014. 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR 680 021. OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH- STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT 1.Petitioner is a primary credit society which has been issuedwith assessment order under the Income Tax Act. Beingaggrieved by the assessment order, the petitioner haspreferred statutory appeal, Exhibit P2, before the 2[nd]respondent appellate authority under the Income Tax Act. Thepetitioner has also preferred Exhibit P3 stay petition in theappeal. However, it is contended that demands are beingraised in terms of the assessment orders.with assessment order under the Income Tax Act. Beingaggrieved by the assessment order, the petitioner haspreferred statutory appeal, Exhibit P2, before the 2[nd]respondent appellate authority under the Income Tax Act. Thepetitioner has also preferred Exhibit P3 stay petition in theappeal. However, it is contended that demands are beingraised in terms of the assessment orders. 2.Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well asthe learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, Iam of the opinion that the appeal preferred by the petitionerinstitution is liable to be considered and disposed of on meritsbefore proceeding with the recovery of amounts in terms ofthe orders passed by the assessment authority.the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, Iam of the opinion that the appeal preferred by the petitionerinstitution is liable to be considered and disposed of on meritsbefore proceeding with the recovery of amounts in terms ofthe orders passed by the assessment authority. 3.In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the2[nd] respondent appellate authority to take up consider and2[nd] respondent appellate authority to take up consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P2 appeal preferred by thepetitioner and to dispose of the same in accordance with lawat the earliest, at any rate, within three months from the dateof receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed onthe appeal, as directed above, coercive proceedings on thebasis of the original order shall be kept in abeyance. Writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 20.12.2016. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 11.1.2017. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITIONER FIELD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 19.4.2019. True copy PS to Judge