Wp(C)/6386/2012 Of Baby Mathew v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
14 Mar 2012 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/6386/2012 Of Baby Mathew v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
14 Mar 2012
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/6386/2012 Of Baby Mathew v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2012) decided the matter.
Decision: 3.I am satisfied that before the appellate authority couldconsider and pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petition, it is unjust to initiatecoercive recovery proceedings for recovery of the amount disputed.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the followingdirections: The 2[nd] respondent shal...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/24TH PHALGUNA 1933
WP(C).No. 6386 of 2012 (W)
----------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------
BABY MATHEW SOMATHEERAM, CHOWARA P.O., BALARAMAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR (SR.)
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SMT.PREETHA S.NAIR
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------------
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
CICLE-1(1)
OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-1, AYAKAR BHAVAN,KAWDIAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.
BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.C. VINCENT
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
svs
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). NO.6386/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1:COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3)OF THE ACT DATED 20/12/2009 ALONG WITH INCOME TAX COMPUTATION FORM AND NOTICE OF DEMAND PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.OF THE ACT DATED 20/12/2009 ALONG WITH INCOME TAX COMPUTATION FORM AND NOTICE OF DEMAND PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
P2:COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 18/1/2011.INCOMETAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 18/1/2011.
P3:COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY NAMELY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 25/1/2011.AUTHORITY NAMELY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 25/1/2011.
P4:COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY DATED 17/2/2011 FILED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY NAMELY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY NAMELY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
P5:COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3/11/2011 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY NAMELY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
svs
P.A. TO JUDGE.
==================
Against Ext.P1 assessment order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2appeal along with Ext.P4 stay petition. The petitioner's grievance isthat during the pendency of the stay petition, coercive recoveryproceedings have been initiated by the assessing authority forrecovery of the disputed amount.
2.I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.
3.I am satisfied that before the appellate authority couldconsider and pass orders on Ext.P4 stay petition, it is unjust to initiatecoercive recovery proceedings for recovery of the amount disputed.Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the followingdirections:
The 2[nd] respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 staypetition, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one monthfrom the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Till ordersare passed on Ext.P4, coercive recovery proceedings for recovery ofthe disputed amount in Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance.
sdk+
Sd/-
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. 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.