Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/6841/2020 Of Manju Shaji v. Commis...

Wp(C)/6841/2020 Of Manju Shaji v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

High Court 06 Mar 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/6841/2020 Of Manju Shaji v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)
Date of order
06 Mar 2020
Assessment year(s)
2017-18
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp(C)/6841/2020 Of Manju Shaji v. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), the High Court (2020) 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 AMIT RAWAL FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1941WP(C).No.6841 OF 2020(E) PETITIONER/S: MANJU SHAJIAGED 40 YEARSW/O. SHAJI, MADAVAM, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMARSMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT/S: 1COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)AAYYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. 2INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, AAYYAKAR BHAVAN, NEAR KARBALA JUNCTION, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOLLAM 691 001. OTHER PRESENT: GP DR THUSHARA JAMES THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON06.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking a direction tothe appellate authority to dispose of the appeal and interimapplication preferred against the assessment order issued by thesecond respondent - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2.Though this Court ought not to have interfered, but inthe interest of justice, without expressing any opinion, this writpetition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondentto take a decision on Ext.P3 application for stay filed along withExt.P2 appeal in accordance with law, after affording anopportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of onemonth from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted thatduring the pendency of the writ petition, the bank account of thepetitioner has been freezed. Lerned Counsel for the petitionerprayed that he may be permitted to operate the account.Accordingly, I defer the order of freezing of the account for 15 days enabling the petitioner to operate the account during thisperiod. Jm/ Sd/- AMIT RAWALJUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BYTHE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 18/12/2029. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL IN FORM NUMBER 35 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 DATED 20/1/2020. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION PREFERRED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P2.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan