Wp(C)/18652/2024 Of K.k. Anilkumar v. The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistantcommissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer
High Court
24 May 2024 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/18652/2024 Of K.k. Anilkumar v. The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistantcommissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer
Date of order
24 May 2024
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp(C)/18652/2024 Of K.k. Anilkumar v. The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistantcommissioner Of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2024) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The writ petition is disposed of.
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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMANFRIDAY, THE 24 DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946WP(C) NO. 18652 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
K.K. ANILKUMAR
AGED 51 YEARS, S/o ONAKKAN, “KAILAS”, THIKKODI, PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 522.
BY ADVS.R.SREEJITHK.KRISHNAACHYUTH MENONPADMANATHAN K.V.
RESPONDENTS:
1THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110 001.
2THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)/COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, PIN – 110 001.
3THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALCOCHIN BENCH, C-I & C-II, KENDRIYA BHAVAN, ERNAKULAM,PIN – 682 037, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4THE INCOME TAX OFFICERINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD 2(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, WARD 2(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN,
INCOME TAX OFFICE, SOUTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673 001.
BY ADVS.KEERTHIVAS GIRISRI. P.G. JAYASHANKAR - STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON24.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
: 3 :
JUDGMENT
Against Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner
preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the 2[nd] respondent. Thesame was dismissed vide Ext.P3 order. Aggrievedthereby, petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal under Section250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 along with Ext.P5 staypetition, before the 3[rd] respondent. The grievance ofthe petitioner is that, pending Ext.P4 appeal, recoverysteps are initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order.
2.Heard Sri. P.G. Jayashankar, the learnedStanding Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. JoseJoseph, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4[th]respondent.
Ext.P4 is a statutory appeal. There will be a
: 4 :
direction to the 3[rd] respondent to consider and dispose of
Ext.P5 stay petition, as expeditiously as possible, at anyrate, within a period of two months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this Judgment. Till such time,recovery steps pursuant to Ext.P1 shall be deferred.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
SRJ
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18652/2024
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DTD. 29-03-2022.RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2017-18 DTD. 29-03-2022.
Exhibit P2COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORETHE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 30-04-2022.THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 30-04-2022.
Exhibit P3COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2NDRESPONDENT DTD. 28-02-2024.RESPONDENT DTD. 28-02-2024.
Exhibit P4COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORETHE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 25-03-2024.THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 25-03-2024.
Exhibit P5COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD, 27-03-2024.BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD, 27-03-2024.
Exhibit P6COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD.07-05-2024.07-05-2024.
Exhibit P7COPY OF ORDER IN WPC NO.29879/2023 OF THISHON'BLE COURT DTD. 29-09-2023.HON'BLE COURT DTD. 29-09-2023.
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.