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

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

High Court 09 Mar 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon
Date of order
09 Mar 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.

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1941WP(C).No.5675 OF 2020(H) PETITIONER: THE KUMARAMPUTHUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.P 373, MANNARKKAD COLLEGE P.O., KUMARAMPUTHUR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678583, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE, N.KRISHNADAS, AGED 57, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON09.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case isthat against the order of assessment, Ext.P1 and appellateorder Ext.P2, preferred a second appeal, Ext.P3 before the3[rd] respondent ie., the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)along with the interim application, Ext.P4 dated 12.02.2020,till such time, the contemplated coercive measures againstthe petitioner may be kept in abeyance. 2. Counsel for the Revenue submits that the writpetition would not lie as the remedy for the petitioner is topress the pending stay application before the ITAT. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties andapprised the paper book, I am of the view that the pleadingsare bereft of any steps for taking of possession by makingmention or otherwise before the ITAT. Be that as it may,considering the fact that no steps of demand or attachmentproceedings under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act havebeen initiated, I dispose of the writ petition with a directionto 3[rd] respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application of stay in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. nak Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/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 APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2014-15 DATED 10.12.2019. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2014-15 DATED 12.02.2020. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.02.2020. //TRUE COPY// P.A 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