By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon
High Court
05 Mar 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menon
Date of order
05 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
THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WP(C).No.5509 OF 2020(K)
PETITIONER:
THE ALANALLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,NO.F 1178, ALANALLUR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD-678601, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.SREENIVASAN, AGED 47, S/O. SANKARAN.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 4, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678014WARD 4, AYAKAR BHAVAN, PALAKKAD-678014
2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)AYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR-68001AYAKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR-68001
3THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682030, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRARAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682030, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
AYAKAR BHAVAN, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-682030,
SC ADV. JOSE JOSEPH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON05.03.2020, 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 03.02.2020,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.
Counsel for the Revenue submits that the writ
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 direction
to 3[rd] respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on
the application of stay in accordance with law, asexpeditiously 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 2015-16
EXHIBIT P2
COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16
EXHIBIT P3
COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT 2015-16
EXHIBIT P4
COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
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.