Wp(C)/11894/2011 Of Joshi.p.mathew v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
11 Apr 2011 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/11894/2011 Of Joshi.p.mathew v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
11 Apr 2011
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/11894/2011 Of Joshi.p.mathew v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2011) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933
WP(C).No. 11894 of 2011(J)
---------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------
JOSHI P. MATHEW, PANATHAMPLACKAL HOUSE,KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------
1.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE - 1., ERNAKULAM.
2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS -(1)SANJUVAN TOWERS, OLD RAILWAY STATION ROAD,ERNAKULAM.
3.THE MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK,KIZHAKKAMBALAM.R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.C.K.GOVINDANR3 BY ADV. JOSE JOSEPH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
svs
C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.
-------------------------------
WP(C).NO. 11894 of 2011
---------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011
JUDGMENT
Against the assessments completed for the years 2002-03to 2008-09 , the petitioner had filed Exts.P8 to P14 appealsbefore the 2[nd] respondent. It is submitted that appeals wereheard on 13.12.2010, as per Ext.P15 posting notice issued, andthe 2[nd] respondent had reserved the matter for pronouncingorders. Meanwhile steps were initiated on the basis of Ext.P24garnishee notice. Hence the petitioner seeks direction to keep inabeyance all further proceedings of recovery initiated pursuantto Ext.P24, till orders are pronounced on the appeals.
2. Considering the submission that the appeals were fullyheard on 13.12.2010 and no further hearing is required, I am ofthe view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the 2[nd]respondent to pass orders on Exts.P8 to P14 appeals and tillthen to restrain recovery steps.
3. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2[nd]respondent to dispose of Exts.P8 to P14 appeals by pronouncing
WP(C).11894/2011 2
orders thereon on the basis of the hearing conducted on13.12.2010.
4. Till such time the appeals are disposed of, recovery of
amount covered under Exts.P1 to P7, which is now initiated on
the basis of Ext.P24 , shall be kept in abeyance.
5. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before
the 2[nd] respondent.
pmn/
C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE
WP(C).11894/2011 3
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.