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.
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.