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
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.