Wp(C)/13350/2013 Of Shri Jose Antony v. The Income Tax Officer
High Court
28 May 2013 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/13350/2013 Of Shri Jose Antony v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
28 May 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/13350/2013 Of Shri Jose Antony v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2013) decided the matter.
Decision: The Writ Petition is disposed of.
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 V.CHITAMBARESH
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2013/7TH JYAISHTA 1935
WP(C).No. 13350 of 2013 (P)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):--------------------------
SHRI JOSE ANTONY, KALLARACKAL, ANAKKALLU P.O., KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH CHERIAN JOHN.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.II, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SASTHRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IV, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERA BHAVAN, KOCHI-682 035. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERA BHAVAN, KOCHI-682 035.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1.TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 01/03/2013 ALONG WITH NOTICE OF DEMAND AND INCOME TAX COMPUTATION FORM PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II, KOTTAYAM. ALONG WITH NOTICE OF DEMAND AND INCOME TAX COMPUTATION FORM PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P2.TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF APPEAL AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL DATED 16/03/2013 FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IV, KOCHI.APPEAL DATED 16/03/2013 FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IV, KOCHI.
EXHIBIT P3.TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 13/04/2013 BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II, KOTTAYAM.BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P4.TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II, KOTTAYAM DATED 07/05/2013 REJECTING THE STAY APPLICATION WITHOUT STATING ANY REASON.OFFICER, WARD-II, KOTTAYAM DATED 07/05/2013 REJECTING THE STAY APPLICATION WITHOUT STATING ANY REASON.
EXHIBIT P5.TRUE COPY OF THE EARLY POSTING PETITION DATED 20/05/2013 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOCHI.BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOCHI.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
V.CHITAMBARESH, J
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No. 13350 OF 2013-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 28[th] day of May, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal against Ext.P1 order ofassessment under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ext.P3 petition for stayfiled before the Assessing Officer himself stands rejected by Ext.P4order. The petitioner contends that Ext.P4 order is laconic and that thecontentions advanced are not reflected therein.
2. The better course open to the petitioner is to move a petitionfor stay in Ext.P2 appeal pending before the Appellate Authority wherethe issues are at large. The petition for stay if filed within two weeksfrom today shall be disposed of by the second respondent within aperiod of one month there from.
3. The recovery proceedings as against the petitioner pursuantto Ext.P1 order of assessment shall be put on hold for a period of twomonths to enable the petitioner to work out his remedy as above.
4. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the Writ Petition withthe judgment before the second respondent for compliance.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE.
/True Copy/
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.