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.
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.