Wp(C)/34659/2016 Of Smt. Laila Mathew v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
28 Oct 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/34659/2016 Of Smt. Laila Mathew v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
28 Oct 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/34659/2016 Of Smt. Laila Mathew v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.
Decision: Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under: i)The 1[st] respondent shall consider Ext.P3 stay petitionfiled along with the appeal within a period of one month from thedate of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
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 ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/6TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 34659 of 2016 (F) ----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
MRS. LAILA MATHEW,
W/O.MATHEW K.CHERIAN, AGED 58 YEARS, KOSAMATTAM HOUSE, MANGANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 018.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.VANDANA MENON SRI.ABRAHAM VARGHESE THARAKAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPELS), III/IV 28/243, "POORNIMA", NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 036.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 34659 of 2016 (F)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1TRUE COPY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER DAED 31.3.2016 PASSEDBY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ACCOMPANYING DEMANDNOTICEBY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE ACCOMPANYING DEMANDNOTICE
P2 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 16.4.2016 SUBMITTEDBY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENTBY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION DATED 29.4.2016 SUBMITTEDBY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENTBY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
P4TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR F. NO.404/10/2009-ITCC DATED 1.12.2009 OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXESDATED 1.12.2009 OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
P5TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION U/S.143(1) DATED 28.2.2013ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX (CPC)BANGALOREISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX (CPC)BANGALORE
P6TRUE COPY OF CHALAN RECEIPT DATED 10.8.2016 ISSUED BY AXISBANK LTDBANK LTD
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
Msv/
P.S.TO JUDGE
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
* * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.34659 of 2016
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 28[th] day of October 2016
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal before the 2[nd] respondentas well as Ext.P3 application for stay before the 1[st] respondent. Itis submitted that during the pendency of the appeal steps arebeing taken by the respondent authorities for recovering theamount demanded pursuant to Ext.P1 re-assessment order.
2.Having regard to the fact that an appeal is pendingbefore the competent authority, I do not think it necessary toconsider the matter on merits. Suffice to say that the appellateauthority has to consider the stay petition on merits within aspecified time and in the meantime, recovery can be kept inabeyance.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as under:
i)The 1[st] respondent shall consider Ext.P3 stay petitionfiled along with the appeal within a period of one month from thedate of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
W.P.C.No.34659/2016
ii)In the meantime, the demand made pursuant to Ext.P1re-assessment order shall be kept in abeyance.
(sd/-)
(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)
jsr
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.