Wp(C)/1496/2020 Of Johny Mathew v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
20 Jan 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/1496/2020 Of Johny Mathew v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
20 Jan 2020
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/1496/2020 Of Johny Mathew v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.
Decision: With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition(Civil) stands finally 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 30TH POUSHA, 1941
WP(C).No.1496 OF 2020(J)
PETITIONER:
JOHNY MATHEW,AGED 63 YEARSARAMBANKUDY HOUSE, NADUKANI P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686691.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.SOMANSMT.T.RADHAMANYSRI.B.PRABHAKARAN
RESPONDENTS:
SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON20.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
===========================
W.P(C) No.1496 of 2020
===========================
Dated this the 20[th] day of January, 2020
JUDGMENT
Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal andExt.P3 stay petition. The petitioner's grievance is that during the pendencyof the stay petition, coercive recovery proceedings have been initiated bythe assessing authority for recovery of the disputed amounts.
2.Heard Sri.P.S. Soman Pulladan, learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, learned standing counselappearing for the respondents.
3.After hearing both sides and after taking note of the facts andcircumstances of the case, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the 2[nd]respondent shall take up the matters in Ext.P3 stay application filed inExt.P2 appeal and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard tothe petitioner through their authorised representative/counsel, if any, shallpass orders on those applications without much delay, preferably within aperiod of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of thisjudgment. Until orders are thus passed on the abovesaid delaycondonation and stay application, further coercive steps for enforcement ofthe impugned order will be kept in abeyance.
With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition(Civil) stands finally disposed of.
Nsd//truec copy//PA to Judge
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2018-19/1014560144(1) DATED 25/12/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17.
EXHIBIT P2
TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 26/01/2019.
EXHIBIT P3
TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORETHE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2016-17 DATED 08/02/2019.
EXHIBIT P4
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ATTACHMENT NO.ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1019382011(1)/2470DATED 24/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2016-17.
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.