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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1941WP(C).No.19285 of 2019 PETITIONER: THE KECHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTDNO.R286, KECHERY P.O., THRISSUR - 680 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVIS.P.A., AGED 44, S/O P.D. ANTHONY BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.K.KRISHNASMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1THE INCOME TAX OFFICERGURUVAYUR - 680 101 WARD 1 AND TPS, IIND FLOOR, CITY PLAZA, WEST NADA, 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR - 680 021 SRI JOSE JOSEPH -SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.19285 of 2019 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order of assessment in Ext.P1 made under Section 80 P of theIncome Tax Act 1961. The petitioner has filed the appeal witha stay petition in Ext.P3. The petitioner prays for appropriatedirection to the appellate authority to consider and dispose ofExt.P3 expeditiously. 2.The case of petitioner is that either the mere filingof appeal or mere pendency of appeal does not amount togranting stay by the appellate authority. The delay inconsidering and disposing of Ext.P3 results in the assessingofficer taking steps for recovering the tax amount which isunder challenge in Ext.P2. The assessing officer, if issuccessful in his effort the statutory appeal would becomeeither academic or ineffective. It is further contended by thepetitioner that in the manner the law provides for protectingthe interest of appellant pending appeal, the order on staypetitions is passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition. The case of petitioner is that either the mere filing WP(C).No.19285 of 2019 3 3. Perused Exts.P1, P2 and P3. Prima facie I am satisfied that a case is made out for issuing necessarydirections to 2[nd] respondent to dispose of the stay petition inExt.P3 respectively. Having regard to the limited prayer and the grounds referred to above, this Court is satisfied that the writ petitioncan be disposed of by this order: (a)The appellate authority/2[nd]respondentconsiders and disposes of Ext.P3 application asearly as possible, preferably within two monthsfrom the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. (b)The respondents are directed not to takecoercive steps or recover the amounts determinedin the orders under appeal for two months fromtoday. PV Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE APPENDIX PV