Case LawHigh Court › By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera...

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

High Court 28 Feb 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon
Date of order
28 Feb 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.

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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1940WP(C).No. 6033 of 2019 PETITIONER: SUMA CHAKKUNNATH,AGED 50 YEARS01, GOPIKAS,VENGANELLUR, CHELAKKARA, THRISSUR-680 586. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER DR.THUSHARA JAMES, STANDING COUNSEL SRI. JOSE JOSEPH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner, an assesee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the rolls of the 1[st] respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order, before the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in theappeal. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercivesteps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, thepetitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standingcounsel and the learned Government Pleader. 3. I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has also filed a stay petition.Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before takingfurther steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. 4. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondentauthority to defer coercive steps until the 2[nd] respondent considers thestay petition. I also hope that the 2[nd] respondent will dispose of the staypetition expeditiously. sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: APPENDIX EXHIBIT P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 30.12.2018. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 24.1.2019. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan