Wp(C)/12397/2018 Of V.shareef v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1940 WP(C).No. 12397 of 2018 PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER V.SHAREEF 'EXCEL PLAZA'., KODAMPUZHA ROAD, PETTA, FEROKE, CALICUT-673631. 'EXCEL PLAZA'., KODAMPUZHA ROAD, BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN SMT.M.SHYLAJA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOZHIKODE 673001. CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOZHIKODE 673001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX(APPELAS) III KOCHI-682036. KOCHI-682036. 3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE , ERNAKULAM-682018. CENTRAL CIRCLE , ERNAKULAM-682018. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-04-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 19.2.2018 IN WPC NOS.4440, 4448, 4449/18EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2008.09.EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE FOR 2008.09EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE FOR 2009.10EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE FOR 2010.11EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE FOR 2011.12EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE FOR 2012.13EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE FOR 2013.14EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE FOR 2014.15EXHIBIT P10 APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR 2008.09EXHIBIT P11 APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR 2009.10EXHIBIT P12 APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR 2010.11EXHIBIT P13 APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR 2011.12EXHIBIT P14 APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR 2012.13EXHIBIT P15 APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR 2013.14EXHIBIT P16 APPEAL AGAINST ASSESSMENT FOR 2014.15EXHIBIT P17 COPY OF STAY PETITION FOR 2008.09EXHIBIT P18 COPY OF STAY PETITION FOR 2009.10EXHIBIT P19 COPY OF STAY PETITION FOR 2010.11EXHIBIT P20 COPY OF STAY PETITION FOR 2011.12EXHIBIT P21 COPY OF STAY PETITION FOR 2012.13EXHIBIT P22 COPY OF STAY PETITION FOR 2013.14EXHIBIT P23 COPY OF STAY PETITION FOR 2014.15 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- PA TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.12397 of 2018 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10[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.P2 and similar orders of assessment under section 153A ofthe Act for the years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12,2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, the petitioner preferredExts.P10 to P16 appeals before the second respondent.Exts.P17 to P23 are the applications for stay preferred by thepetitioner in the said appeals. The grievance of the petitionerin the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the secondrespondent in passing orders on the said aplications for stay.Exts.P3 to P9 are the demand notices issued to the petitionerwhile completing the assessments referred to above. It isalleged by the petitioner that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by assessmentorders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions inthis regard, 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 directingthe second respondent to take a decision on Exts.P17 to P23applications for stay, within two months from the date of receiptof a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to saythat until orders are passed on Exts.P17 to P23 applications forstay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts coveredby Exts.P3 to P9 demand notices shall be deferred. rsr initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by assessmentorders. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions inthis regard, 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 directingthe second respondent to take a decision on Exts.P17 to P23applications for stay, within two months from the date of receiptof a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to saythat until orders are passed on Exts.P17 to P23 applications forstay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts coveredby Exts.P3 to P9 demand notices shall be deferred. rsr Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE