By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon
High Court
17 Aug 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon
Date of order
17 Aug 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.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1942
WA.No.1087 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9771/2020(V) DT.18.05.2020 OF HIGHCOURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
N.K.VINOBA894A/16/560, NEELIMATHARA HOUSE, KOTTUVALLIKKAD, MOOTHAKUNNAM P.O., MOOTHAKUNNAM, N.PARUR-683 516, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1THE INCOME TAX OFFICERINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD 3, K.A.P COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, OFFICE OF THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALUVARANGE, R.S.ROAD, ALUVA-683 101.
2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAMKULAM, KOCHI-682 036.
SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. IT
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.08.2020,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
Appellant is before us challenging the order ofthe learned Single Judge, which directed recoverysteps to be kept in abeyance on deposit of 10% andalso directed consideration of the stay petition bythe first Appellate Authority. Writ petitioner is inappeal contending that he has a good prima facie caseand there should be complete exemption from recoverywhen the appeal is pending.
2.We are in appeal and we cannot interfere withthe discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge,which we find to be more than reasonable. LearnedSingle Judge had directed deposit of 10% within aperiod of one month. Only since an appeal has beenfiled, the order has not been complied with and hencewe extend the time for another 30 days from the dateof receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Inthe context of the pandemic, we are of the opinionthat the appeal itself could be heard and disposed of
and there is no requirement as of now to consider thestay petition. If the petitioner makes the deposit,recovery will stand stayed till disposal of appeal.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI
JUDGE
Pn 05/08
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.