Wp(C)/5177/2012 Of Mathew Vellapally v. The Income Tax Officer
High Court
02 Mar 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/5177/2012 Of Mathew Vellapally v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
02 Mar 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp(C)/5177/2012 Of Mathew Vellapally v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.
Decision: Writ petition is disposed of as above. ln ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2012/12TH PHALGUNA 1933
WP(C).No. 5177 of 2012 (V)
------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------------
MATHEW VELLAPALLY SMART APARTMENTS, 3/120B, MUTTAMBALAM KOTTAYAM, PIN-695301.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, KOTTAYAM RANGE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001. WARD-3, KOTTAYAM RANGE, PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) KERA BHAVAN, S.R.V.H.S ROAD, ERNAKULAM PIN-682011. KERA BHAVAN, S.R.V.H.S ROAD, ERNAKULAM PIN-682011.
SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DCS
WP(C).No. 5177 of 2012 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 23-11-2011 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 8-12-2011 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ITA 38/2011-2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4: PHOTOCOPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE IST RESPONDENT.BEFORE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6: PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14-2-2012 ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 21-2-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22-2-2012 PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS ' :- NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
ANTONY DOMINIC,J
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.5177 of 2012
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 2[nd] day of March, 2012
JUDGMENT
Ext.P2 is an order of assessment passed against the
petitioner for the year 2009-2010. Aggrieved by this order, thepetitioner has filed Ext.P3 appeal, which has been numbered asI.T.A 38/2011. The appeal and Ext.P4 stay petition are pendingbefore the second respondent. In the meantime, petitionerrequested the first respondent for a stay of recovery, that wasdeclined by Ext.P8. It is in these circumstances, the writ petitionhas been filed apprehending recovery of the balance amount dueunder Ext.P2.
2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and also the learned standing counsel appearing for therespondent.
3. Taking note of the pendency of Ext.P2 appeal before thesecond respondent, I direct the second respondent to considerExt.P3 with notice to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
In the meantime, recovery of the balance tax amount due fromthe petitioner under Ext.P2 assessment order will stand stayedsubject to the petitioner remitting an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhswithin two weeks.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ln
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
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.