Wp(C)/40109/2018 Of Indu Suresh Kumar v. The Commissioner If Income Tax(Appelas)
High Court
10 Dec 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/40109/2018 Of Indu Suresh Kumar v. The Commissioner If Income Tax(Appelas)
Date of order
10 Dec 2018
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/40109/2018 Of Indu Suresh Kumar v. The Commissioner If Income Tax(Appelas), the High Court (2018) decided the matter.
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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
MONDAY ,THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940WP(C).No. 40109 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
INDU SURESH KUMARAGED 46 YEARSS/O. SURESH KUMAR, K.P 12/100, HARITHA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIRSMT.SMITHA BABU
RESPONDENT/S:
1THE COMMISSIONER IF INCOME TAX(APPELAS)THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN 695 003THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN 695 003
2THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1 (4) AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT , PIN 695 003
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order before the first
respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in the appeal.Ventilating her grievance that the authorities are taking coercive steps before
WPC No.40109 of 2018 2
the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner hasfiled this writ petition.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader.
3. I reckon the petitioner has exercisedon time her statutory remedy
of filing an appeal. It appears that she has also filed a stay petition.Procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before takingfurther 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 first respondent considers the staypetition. I also hope that the first respondent will dispose of the staypetition expeditiously.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OFR THE YEAR 2015-16 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28-12-2017
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO THEPETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28-12-2017
WPC No.40109 of 2018 3
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.