Case Law › High Court › Wp(C)/16876/2024 Of Muhammed Ali P.p v....

Wp(C)/16876/2024 Of Muhammed Ali P.p v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 03 May 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/16876/2024 Of Muhammed Ali P.p v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
03 May 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp(C)/16876/2024 Of Muhammed Ali P.p v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2024) decided the matter.

Decision: 2.Having heard the learned counsel for the petitionerand the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, thiswrit petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3[rd]respondent to consider Exts.P7 to P9 stay petitions and passorders within a period of two months from today.

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 ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 3 DAY OF MAY 2024 / 13TH VAISAKHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 16876 OF 2024 PETITIONER: MUHAMMED ALI P.P., AGED 64 YEARS, A-11A BENZEER MANZIL, KUTTOOR POST AR NAGAR, MALAPPURAM, PIN –676 305 BY ADVS.P.RAGHUNATHANPREMJIT NAGENDRANRISHAL.KSAIJESH A. RESPONDENTS: 1ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 001CIRCLE-1, AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 001 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL 2ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, KOCHI, PIN – 682 018CIRCLE , AAYAKKAR BHAVAN, KOCHI, PIN – 682 018 3COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, C.R BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 018 SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FORADMISSION ON 03.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T The Income Tax Department has initiated proceedingsagainst the petitioner for the assessment years 2011-2012,2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Thereafter, Exts.P1 to P3assessment orders were passed. Challenging Exts.P1 to P3,the petitioner preferred Exts.P4 to P6 appeals before the 3[rd]respondent. The petitioner has also moved Exts.P7 to P9 staypetitions. Exts.P4 to P6 and P7 to P9 are pending before the3[rd] respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in themeanwhile, the 1[st] respondent is initiating steps for recoveryof demand as per the demand notices in Exts.P1 to P3 orders.The limited prayer of the petitioner is to give a direction tothe 3[rd] respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P4 to P6appeals and Exts.P7 to P9 stay petitions. 2.Having heard the learned counsel for the petitionerand the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, thiswrit petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3[rd]respondent to consider Exts.P7 to P9 stay petitions and passorders within a period of two months from today. Till then, ..3.. the recovery proceedings against the petitioner for recoveryof the amount confirmed against him by Exts.P1 to P3 ordersshall be kept in abeyance. PR Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATHJUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16876/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS
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