Wp(C)/11786/2018 Of The Mayyanadu Regional Cooperative Bank v. Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 11786 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) THE MAYYANADU REGIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., MAYYANADU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 303, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY RITHIRAJ, S/O. GOPINATHAN NAIR. BY ADVS.SRI.A.JANI(KOLLAM) SRI.G.SIVASANKAR RESPONDENT(S): 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLLAM RANGE, AAYKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM - 691 001. WARD 4, OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLLAM RANGE, AAYKAR BHAVAN, KARBALA JUNCTION, KOLLAM - 691 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), OFFICE OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYKAR BHAVAN, KAWADIYAR JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. OFFICE OF CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYKAR BHAVAN, KAWADIYAR JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. R BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-04-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS //TRUE COPY// SKS SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.11786 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4[th] day of April, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act(the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved byExt.P1 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appealbefore the second respondent. Ext.P4 is the application for staypreferred by the petitioner in Ext.P3 appeal. The grievance ofthe petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the partof the second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P4application for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writpetition that proceedings have already been initiated forrealisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order. Thepetitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in thisregard, in this writ petition. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner asalso the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of thecase, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P4application for stay, within two months from the date of receipt ofa copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to saythat until orders are passed on Ext.P4 application for stay, furtherproceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1assessment order shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. SKS