Wp(C)/3252/2018 Of Mohammed Musthafa C.k v. Incometax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 3252 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA C.K. K.P. XII/682; PARAKKOT PATTAYIL HOUSE, FEROKE P.O, CALICUT: 673631. BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WAD 2(3); KOZHIKODE: 673 001. WAD 2(3); KOZHIKODE: 673 001. 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) KOZHIKODE: 673 001. KOZHIKODE: 673 001. 3. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER KOZHIKODE : 673 001. KOZHIKODE : 673 001. R BY SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.================== W.P.(C.) No.3252 of 2018---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19[th] day of March, 2018 JUDGMENT Petitioner was an assessee under the Income TaxAct (the Act). The assessment of the petitioner for the year2014-'15 has been completed in terms of the provisionscontained in Section 143(3) of the Act, as per Ext.P5 order.Aggrieved by Ext.P5 assessment order, the petitionerpreferred Ext.P6 appeal before the second respondent.Pending disposal of Ext.P6 appeal, the petitioner moved anapplication before the assessing authority invoking sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Act for stay of furtherproceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P5assessment order. Ext.P7 is the application preferred by thepetitioner. The grievance of the petitioner concerns thedelay on the part of the assessing authority in passing orders on Ext.P7 application. He, therefore, seeksappropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioneras also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner pointedout that after having filed Ext.P7 application, the petitionerpreferred an application for stay before the secondrespondent in Ext.P6 appeal as well and the same is alsopending. Having regard to the facts and circumstances ofthis case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitiondirecting the second respondent to pass orders on the staypetition claimed to have been filed by the petitioner inExt.P6 appeal, if the same has so far not been disposed of.This shall be done within two months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say untilorders are passed on the application for stay as directedabove, further proceedings for realisation of the amountscovered by the assessment order shall be deferred. If thebank accounts of the petitioner have been freezed for W.P.(C.) No. 3252/2018 realisation of the amounts covered by the assessment order, the petitioner shall also be permitted to operate theaccounts until such time the direction aforesaid is compliedwith. SKS sd/- P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE