Sajitha K.s.aged 36 Yearsproprietor,M/S. Krishna Motors v. Menonmeera V.menonr.sreejithk.krishna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 30 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 38549 OF 2022 PETITIONERS: 1SAJITHA K.S.AGED 36 YEARSPROPRIETOR,M/S. KRISHNA MOTORS,3/842, SARAS TOWERS, OTTAPALAM ROAD, PARLI POST,PALAKKAD, PIN - 678612BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENONMEERA V.MENONR.SREEJITHK.KRISHNA RESPONDENTS: 1THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,DELHI, PIN - 1100012NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTREDELHI,PIN - 110001 REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS).3THE INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 1 & TPS,AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ENGLISH CHURCH ROAD,PALAKKA , PIN - 678014ADV. JOSE JOSEPH, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Dated this the 30[th] day of November, 2022 The petitioner suffered Ext.P1 order ofassessment for the year assessment year 2017-18under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal along withExt.P3 application for condonation of delay and Ext.P4application for stay before the 2[nd] respondent. Thepetitioner apprehends that recovery proceedings maybe initiated to recover amounts due under Ext.P1order of assessment before Exts.P3 and P4 areconsidered by the 2[nd] respondent. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for therespondent Department. Having regard to the facts and circumstances ofthe case and considering the limited nature of reliefsought for by the petitioner, the writ petition willstand disposed of directing the 2[nd] respondent to WPC No.38549 of 2022 consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petitionwithin the shortest possible time, after affording tothe petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Till suchtime as orders are passed on Ext.P4, any proceedingsto recover amounts due under Ext.P1 order ofassessment shall be kept in abeyance. It is madeclear that orders need to be passed on merits onExt.P4 stay petition only if the 2[nd] respondent findssufficient ground to condone the delay in filing theappeal. SKP/30-11 Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38549/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DTD. 22-03-2022EXHIBIT P2COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 20-09-2022EXHIBIT P3COPY OF DELAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONR BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 20-09-2022EXHIBIT P4COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONR BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 20-09-2022 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE