Wp(C)/14792/2020 Of Universal Gospel Ministries v. Income Tax Officer
High Court
22 Jul 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/14792/2020 Of Universal Gospel Ministries v. Income Tax Officer
Date of order
22 Jul 2020
Assessment year(s)
2017-18
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/14792/2020 Of Universal Gospel Ministries v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2020 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1942
WP(C).No.14792 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
UNIVERSAL GOSPEL MINISTRIESCARMEL, ARA-52, KULUMALAPULIYARAKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695573REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE SEBASTIAN MATHEW
BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ
RESPONDENT/S:
1INCOME TAX OFFICEREXEMPTION WARD, FIRST FLOORAAYAKAR BHAWAN, 1ST FLOORKAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003
2COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003
OTHER PRESENT:
S.C. SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON22.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitionerhas preferred Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition before the 2nd respondent. Itis the case of the petitioner that even before the 2nd respondent had an occasionto consider the stay application, the recovery steps were taken for recovery of theamounts confirmed against the petitioner under Ext.P1 assessment order.
2.I have heard Sri.Arun Raj, the learned counsel for the petitioner asalso Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned counsel for the respondent.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and thesubmissions made across the Bar, I deem it appropriate to dispose the writ petitionby directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 staypetition within an outer time limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copyof this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. It is made clear that till such time asorders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed, and the order communicatedto the petitioner, recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against thepetitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order shall be kept in abeyance. The petitionershall produce a copy of this judgment together with a copy of the writ petitionbefore the 2nd respondent for further action.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2019 PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FORASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FORASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE
EXT.P2COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18
EXT.P3COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18
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.