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

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

High Court 28 Jan 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon
Date of order
28 Jan 2020
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 (2020) decided the matter.

Decision: With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition(Civil) stands finally disposed of.

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 ALEXANDER THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 8TH MAGHA, 1941 WP(C).No.2269 OF 2020(G) PETITIONER: THOMAS DANIEL,AGED 63 YEARSS/O.DANIEL THOMAS, INDIKATTIL HOUSE, VAKAYAR, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 698. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: 1THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX,CIRCLE-I,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THIRUVALLA - 689 101. 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),KOTTAYAM - 686 001.KOTTAYAM - 686 001. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON28.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 2269 of 2020 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28[th] day of January, 2020 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal andExts.P3 stay petitions. The petitioner's grievance is that during thependency of the stay petitions, coercive recovery proceedings havebeen initiated by the assessing authority for recovery of the disputedamounts. 2.Heard Sri.Harisankar V. Menon , the learned counselappearing for the petitioner and Smt.M.M.Jasmin, the learnedGovernment Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3.After hearing both sides and after taking note of the factsand circumstances of the case, it is ordered in the interest of justicethat the 2[nd] respondent shall take up the matters in Ext.P-3 stayapplication filed in Ext.P-2 appeal and after affording reasonableopportunity of being heard to the petitioner through their authorizedrepresentative/counsel, if any, shall pass orders on those applications without much delay, preferably within a period of sixweeks from the date of production of a certified copy of thisjudgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid delaycondonation and stay application, further coercive steps forenforcement of the impugned order will be kept in abeyance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition(Civil) stands finally disposed of. Nsd Sd/-ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2013-14. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE HE 2ND RESPONDENT 2013-14. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
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