By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menonsmt.k.krishna
High Court
18 Feb 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menonsmt.k.krishna
Date of order
18 Feb 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menonsmt.k.krishna, the High Court (2019) 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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
MONDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 29TH MAGHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 4876 of 2019
PETITIONER:
GEORGE JACOBAGED 60 YEARS,S/O. JACOB, THEKKEMURIYIL HOUSE, ARATTUPUZHA P.O., CHENGANNUR,PATHANAMTHITTA
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENONSMT.K.KRISHNA
RESPONDENTS:
1THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM-686 001CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM-686 001
2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV,KOTTAYAM - 686 001
BY. STANDING COUNSEL SRI. JOSE JOSEPH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 4876 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the
rolls of the 1[st] respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order, before
the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in theappeal. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercivesteps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, thepetitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedStanding counsel.
3. I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedy
of filing an appeal. It appears that he has also filed a stay petition.Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before takingfurther steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition.
4. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondentauthority to defer coercive steps until the 2[nd] respondent
considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 2[nd] respondent will disposeof the stay petition expeditiously.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 31-12-2017
EXHIBIT P2COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 31-01-2018
EXHIBIT P3
COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 12-02-2019
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL
//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.