Wp(C)/5775/2020 Of Vinu Selvaraj v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
27 Feb 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/5775/2020 Of Vinu Selvaraj v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
27 Feb 2020
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp(C)/5775/2020 Of Vinu Selvaraj v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.
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 S.V.BHATTI
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1941WP(C).No.5775 OF 2020(V)
PETITIONER/S:
VINU SELVARAJPROPRIETOR OF M/S. RADHAS TEXTILES, CHOWKA ROAD, KOLLAM 691 305
BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSMT. ARYA ANILSHRI.GOKULRAJ L.SMT.SRI HARINI S.P.
RESPONDENT/S:
1ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE, KOLLAM 691 001
2COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033
SC CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON27.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of February 2020
The petitioner filed appeal in Ext.P2 aggrieved by the order ofassessment in Ext.P1 made under Income Tax Act, 1961. Thepetitioner has filed the appeal with Ext.P3 stay petition. Thepetitioner prays for appropriate direction to the appellateauthority to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 expeditiously.
2.The case of petitioner is that either the mere filing ofappeal or pendency of appeal does not amount to granting stay bythe appellate authority. The delay in considering and disposing ofExt.P3 results in the assessing officer taking steps for recoveringthe tax amount which is under challenge in Ext.P2. The assessingofficer, if is successful in his effort the statutory appeal wouldbecome either academic or ineffective. It is further contended bythe petitioner that in the manner the law provides for protectingthe interest of appellant pending appeal, the order on stay petition
3
is passed expeditiously. Hence the writ petition.
3.Perused Exts.P1, P2, and P3. Prima facie I am satisfiedthat a case is made out for issuing necessary directions to 2[nd]respondent to dispose of stay petition in Ext.P3.
Having regard to the limited prayer and the grounds referred
to above, this Court is satisfied that the writ petition can bedisposed of by this order:
(a)The appellate authority/2nd respondent considersand disposes of Ext.P3 application as early as possible,preferably within two months from the date of receipt ofcopy of this judgment.
(b)The respondents are directed not to take coercivesteps or recover the amount determined in the ordersunder appeal for ten weeks from today.
JS
Sd/-
S.V.BHATTI
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED16-12-2019
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 20/1/2020
EXHIBIT P3
TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 17/2/2020
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.