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

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.
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.5681 OF 2020(I) PETITIONER: THE KANJIKODE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. F1199KANJIKODE P.O., KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD-678 621, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GURU RAJALINGAM. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENTS: OTHER PRESENT: GP DR.THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON05.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.5681 OF 2020 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that against the order of assessment, Ext.P1and appellate order Ext.P2, preferred a secondappeal, Ext.P3 before the 3[rd] respondent ie., theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) along with theinterim application, Ext.P4 dated 5[th] February 2020,till such time, the contemplated coercive measuresagainst the petitioner may be kept in abeyance. 2. Counsel for the Revenue submits that thewrit petition would not lie as the remedy for thepetitioner is to press the pending stay applicationbefore the ITAT. Having heard the learned counsel for the partiesand apprised the paper book, I am of the view that thepleadings are bereft of any steps for taking of possession by making mention or otherwise beforethe ITAT. Be that as it may, considering the fact thatno steps of demand or attachment proceedings underSection 281 of the Income Tax Act have beeninitiated, I dispose of the writ petition with adirection to 3[rd] respondent to consider and passappropriate orders on the application of stay inaccordance with law, as expeditiously as possiblewithin a period of 15 days from the date of receipt ofa certified copy of this judgment. vv Sd/-AMIT RAWALJUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT -2010-11. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. //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