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

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
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