Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/2166/2019 Of Deepesh Divakaran M K...

Wp(C)/2166/2019 Of Deepesh Divakaran M Kunnath v. The Income Tax Officer

High Court 24 Jan 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/2166/2019 Of Deepesh Divakaran M Kunnath v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
24 Jan 2019
Assessment year(s)
2011-12
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wp(C)/2166/2019 Of Deepesh Divakaran M Kunnath v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY ,THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 4TH MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 2166 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: DEEPESH DIVAKARAN M KUNNATHMAROTTI KUNNATHU, 5/316MAROTTIKUNNATH HOUSE, AVITTATHURIRINJALAKKUDA - 680683 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT/S:1THE INCOME TAX OFFICERWARD 2(3), RANGE-2AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURANNAGAR, THRISSUR - PIN 6800012THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGARTHRISSUR, PIN-680001 SC SRI. JOSE JOSEPH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Income Tax Act, on the rollsof the 1[st] respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 order, before the 2[nd] respondent.The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal. Ventilating hisgrievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before the appellateauthority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner has filed this writpetition. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader. 3.I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedyof filing an appeal. It appears that he has also filed a stay petition. Proceduralfairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps,until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondentauthority to defer coercive steps until the 2[nd] respondent considers the staypetition. I also hope that the 2[nd] respondent will dispose of the stay petitionexpeditiously. Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: APPENDIX EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2EXHIBIT P3 sd COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST REPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12. COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 19.01.2019 AGAINST EXT.P1. COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.01.2019.
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