Wp(C)/15843/2012 Of Dr.deepthi Gopalakrishna Pillai v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle Ernakulam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2012/29TH ASHADHA 1934 WP(C).No. 15843 of 2012 (E) --------------------------- PETITIONER:----------- DR.DEEPTHI GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, NO.12, ANSAL RIVER DALE, EROOR, THRIPUNITHURA. BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SMT.NIVEDITA A.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM-682 018. CENTRAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM-682 018. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM-682 015. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON20-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AS PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS: APPENDIX WP(C).No. 15843 of 2012 (E) EXHIBIT P14: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28/6/2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P15:COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE AS P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------------------- W.P. (C) NO. 15843 of 2012 (E) --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20[th] day of July, 2012 JUDGMENT Exhibits P1 to P6 assessment orders passed by the first respondent in respect of the various assessment years 2005-2006 to 2010-2011 have been subjected to challenge by filingExts.P7 to P12 appeals, which are pending consideration beforethe second respondent. Meanwhile, the petitioner also filed apetition for stay presumably under section 220(6) of the IncomeTax Act before the concerned authority. However, afterconsidering the same Ext.P14 communication dated 28/06/2012was issued to the petitioner, stating that, the Commissioner ofIncome Tax Central has rejected the stay petition. This madethe petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writpetition. 2.Heard the learned standing counsel for therespondents as well. 3.In the course of the hearing, the learned counsel forthe petitioner submits that, the petitioner has preferred a properpetition for stay before the second respondent, as borne by W.P. (C) NO. 15843 of 2012 (E) 2 Ext.P15, which has been produced along with I.A.No.9913/2012.4.After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that thevarious points raised by the petitioner need not be dealt with atthe hands of this Court and the writ petition is disposed of,directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P15 and passappropriate orders, in accordance with law, at the earliest, at anyrate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of thisjudgment. It is made clear that, 'status quo' will continue tillsuch time. The writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE