Wp(C)/7264/2020 Of Sham Basheer v. Income Tax Officer
High Court
10 Mar 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/7264/2020 Of Sham Basheer v. Income Tax Officer
Date of order
10 Mar 2020
Assessment year(s)
2017-18
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp(C)/7264/2020 Of Sham Basheer v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 20TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WP(C).No.7264 OF 2020(G)
PETITIONER:
SHAM BASHEERAGED 48 YEARSPROPRIETOR OF M/S. AFC FRUITS RESIDING AT ASHIK MANZIL, NEAR VIMALA HOSPITAL, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM, 686631, KEARLA, INDIA,
BY ADV. SMT.K.LATHA
RESPONDENTS:
SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON10.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court against the
assessment order dated 31.12.2019 for the assessment year2017 preferred an appeal Ext.P2, stay application Ext.P3 anddelay condonation application Ext.P3(a). The learned counselfor the petitioner submits that during the pendency of theappeal the demand notice under Section 156 of the IncomeTax Act along with the assessment order had already issuedand therefore, the predicament of the petitioner is writ large.
2.I am of the view that the petitioner’s grievance forthe time being can be only addressed by issuing directions tothe 2[nd] respondent to consider the application for stay andcondonation of delay for consideration of the interim prayersought in terms of the memorandum of appeal (Ext.P2) wasstaying the demand, so that the fate can be decided.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of thematter, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to therespondent to decide the application for condonation of delayand stay (Exts.P3 and P3(a)) within a period of one month
from the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. Tillthen the demand Ext.P4 or any future demand he praysduring the interregnum is ordered to be kept in abeyance.
It is made clear that the interim stay is only till theadjudication of stay and condonation delay application.
This writ petition will stand disposed of.
nak
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1023548847(1) ISSUED U/S.143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, DATED 31.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18
EXHIBIT P2
THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL IN FORM NO.35 ALONG WITH GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILEDBY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE EXT P1 ORDER.
EXHIBIT P3EXHIBIT P3A
THE TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE P2 APPEALS,
THE TRUE COPY OF DELAY CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE P2 APPEALS.
EXHIBIT P4
THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961DATED 31.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
//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.