Wp(C)/6126/2019 Of Madhavan Nair v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii
High Court
28 Feb 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/6126/2019 Of Madhavan Nair v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii
Date of order
28 Feb 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/6126/2019 Of Madhavan Nair v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Ii, the High Court (2019) 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
THURSDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1940WP(C).No. 6126 of 2019
PETITIONER:
MADHAVAN NAIR,AGED 73 YEARSKOZHAMBALLY HOUSE,PATTIMATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.C.THOMASSMT.BLOSSOM MATHEWSRI.ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA
RESPONDENTS:
BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the
rolls of the 2[nd] respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment order, beforethe 1[st ]respondent. The petitioner has also filed a stay petition in theappeal. Ventilating his grievance that the authorities are taking coercivesteps before the appellate authority could consider the stay petition, thepetitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedStanding counsel.
3. I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time his statutory remedy
of filing an appeal. It appears that he 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.
4. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the respondentauthority to defer coercive steps until the 1[st] respondent considers the staypetition. I also hope that the 1[st] respondent will dispose of the staypetition expeditiously.
sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.12.2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DIRECTING TO PAY RS.23,42,090/-.
EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY RS.23,42,090/- DATED 10.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DIRECTING TO PAY 20% OF THE NET DEMAND OF RS.23,42,090/-ON OR BEFORE 20.02.2019.
EXHIBIT P5
TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY OF COLLECTION OF TAX DATED 21.02.2019 FILED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO 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.