Palakkad Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., F 997, P. B v. Menon
High Court
03 Apr 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Palakkad Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., F 997, P. B v. Menon
Date of order
03 Apr 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Palakkad Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., F 997, P. B v. Menon, the High Court (2018) decided the matter.
Decision: In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to take a decision onExts.P3 and P3(a) applications preferred by the petitionerwith notice to the petitioner, within one month from thedate of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1940
WP(C).No. 11422 of 2018
PETITIONER(S)
PALAKKAD CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD., F 997, P. B. NO. 49, 4TH FLOOR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY P. G. RAMDAS, GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON
SMT.MEERA V.MENON
SMT.K.KRISHNA
RESPONDENT(S):
1. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD-678014. CIRCLE 1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD-678014.
2. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (TDS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD, PALAKKAD-678014.
R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-04-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
//TRUE COPY//
SD/-P.A. TO JUDGE
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
==================
W.P.(C.) No.11422 of 2018
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3[rd] day of April, 2018
JUDGMENT
Exts.P3 and P3(a) are the applications preferred
by the petitioner before the first respondent for rectificationof Exts.P1 and P1(a) assessment orders invoking Section154 of the Income Tax Act (the Act). The grievance of thepetitioner is that even when Exts.P3 and P3(a) applicationsare pending, steps are being taken by the respondentsconcerned to enforce Exts.P1 and P1(a) assessment orders.The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions inthis regard, in the writ petition.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioneras also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
3.The learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents seeks time to make submissions as to themaintainability of Exts.P3 and P3(a) applications.
4.The question as to whether Exts.P3 and P3(a)applications are maintainable is a matter to be consideredby the first respondent at the first instance.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed
of directing the first respondent to take a decision onExts.P3 and P3(a) applications preferred by the petitionerwith notice to the petitioner, within one month from thedate of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to saythat until orders are passed as directed above, furtherproceedings for realisation of the amounts covered byExts.P1 and P1(a) orders shall be deferred.
sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, 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.