Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/16218/2020 Of Latheef Kunju v. The...

Wp(C)/16218/2020 Of Latheef Kunju v. The Income Tax Officer Ward -11

High Court 07 Aug 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/16218/2020 Of Latheef Kunju v. The Income Tax Officer Ward -11
Date of order
07 Aug 2020
Assessment year(s)
2017-18
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wp(C)/16218/2020 Of Latheef Kunju v. The Income Tax Officer Ward -11, 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.16218 OF 2020 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.08.2020,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, thepetitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal together with Ext.P3 stay petitionbefore the 2[nd] respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even priorto considering the stay petition, recovery steps are taken by therespondents against the petitioner for recovery of the amountsconfirmed by Ext.P1 assessment order. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerand also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case asalso the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition withthe following directions: 1. The 2[nd] respondent shall consider and passreasoned orders on Ext.P3 stay petition within aperiod of four months from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. 2. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1assessment order shall be kept in abeyance tillsuch time as orders are passed by the 2[nd]respondent as directed above and the ordercommunicated to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writpetition together with a copy of this judgment,before the 2[nd] respondent, for further action. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y.2017-18, DATED 30.11.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST APPEAL DATED 05.01.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 07.03.2020 FILED BYTHE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 220(6) OF THE ACT, DATED 07.03.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan