Sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.k.krishnasmt.meera V.menon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR MONDAY ,THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940WA.No. 2391 of 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 37945/2018 of HIGHCOURT APPELLANT/S: SHALOM CHARITABLE MINISTRIES OF INDIA, SHALOM RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC SCHOOL, SHALOM NAGAR, GOPALAPURAM ROAD, CHITTUR P.O, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, K.T.THOMAS. BY ADVS. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.K.KRISHNASMT.MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT/S: 1THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX,1ST CIRCLE, PALAKKAD-678 001.1ST CIRCLE, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 3THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),3RD FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR-680 001.3RD FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, THRISSUR-680 001. 4THE MANAGER,DHANALAKSHMI BANK, PARLI BRANCH, PALAKKAD-678 612. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Ramachandra Menon, J. JUDGMENT Interference declined by the learned single Judgewith regard to the condition imposed by the appellateauthority as per Ext.P4 order while granting the benefitof interim stay during pendency of Ext.P2 appeal is thesubject matter of challenge in this appeal. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant atlength. The sequence of events has been discussed by thelearned single Judge. On being aggrieved by Ext.P1assessment order, the same was subjected to challenge byfiling Ext.P2 appeal and the coercive proceedings weresought to be interdicted by filing Ext.P3 stay petition.It was taking note of the facts and figures, that Ext.P4order was passed by the 3[rd] respondent granting interimstay, however, subject to satisfaction of 20% of theliability fixed as per the order under challenge. This was sought to be challenged by the petitioner by filing awrit petition, but interference has been declined inexercise of the discretion exercised by the learnedsingle Judge. This is put to challenge in the appeal. 3.After hearing the learned counsel for theappellant and also the learned Government Pleader, thisCourt does not find anything wrong or objectionable withregard to the course pursued by the learned single Judge.No tenable ground is brought out to call for interferenceof the Division Bench with regard to the discretionexercised by the learned single Judge as above. In thesaid circumstance, interference is declined. The appealis dismissed. 4.The learned counsel for the appellant howeverseeks for a short time to comply with the conditionimposed as per Ext.P4. Since the time has already runout, we find it appropriate to grant one more week's timeto comply with the direction in Ext.P4. If the conditionis satisfied within one week from the date of receipt ofa certified copy of this judgment, the appellant will continue to enjoy the benefit of Ext.P4 order throughoutthe pendency of the appeal. It is ordered accordingly. DG Sd/-P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENONJUDGESd/-N.ANIL KUMARJUDGE