Wp(C)/42079/2018 Of Karuvannur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Income Tax Officer
High Court
21 Dec 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/42079/2018 Of Karuvannur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
21 Dec 2018
Assessment year(s)
2011-12
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/42079/2018 Of Karuvannur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Income Tax Officer, 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 FRIDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA,1940
WP(C).No. 42079 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
KARUVANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITEDKARUVANNUR P.O., THRISSUR-680 711, REPRESENTEDBY ITS SECRETARY SRI.SUNIL KUMAR.T.R.
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
WARD 2(2), RANGE-2, AAYAKAR BAHVAN, SAKTHAN
THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001.
2THE COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS),AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI JOSE JOSEPH, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). No. 42079 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, onthe rolls of the 1[st] respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment
order, before the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner has also filed astay petition in the appeal. Ventilating his grievance that theauthorities are taking coercive steps before the appellateauthority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner hasfiled this writ petition.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Government Pleader.
3.I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time hisstatutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has alsofiled a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that theauthorities may wait, before taking further steps, until theappellate authority decides on the stay petition.
Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing therespondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2[nd]
W.P.(C). No. 42079 of 2018
respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 2[nd]respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
JUDGE
das
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 05.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12.EXHIBIT P2COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 18.12.2018 AGAINST EXT.P1.EXHIBIT P3COPY OF THE STAY PETITION ON STATUTORYAPPEAL BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR DATED 18.12.2018.
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.