Wp(C)/8016/2018 Of Mathew K. Cherian v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 8016 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) SHRI.MATHEW K. CHERIAN S/O. CHERIAN, AGED 62 YEARS, KOSAMATTAM HOUSE, MANGANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 018 BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.DIVYA RAVINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTTAYAM 686 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) III 28/243,"POORNIMA", NEAR MANORAMA JUNCTION, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31-12-2017 ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2015-16 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 5-2-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF STAY PETITION DATED 7-2-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P2(B) TRUE COPY OF PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILLING THE APPEAL DATED 5-2-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S. 220(6) DATED 19-02-2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.A. TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.8016 of 2018 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of March, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act(the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved byExt.P1 assessment order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2appeal before the second respondent. There was a delay of fourdays in instituting the appeal. The petitioner, therefore,preferred Ext.P2(b) application for condonation of the delay infiling the appeal. Ext.P2(a) is the application for stay preferredby the petitioner in Ext.P2 appeal. The grievance of thepetitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part ofthe second respondent in passing orders on Ext.P2(b)application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal andExt.P2(a) application for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner inthe writ petition that proceedings have already been initiatedfor realisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 order. Thepetitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in thisregard, in this writ petition. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner asalso the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of thecase, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directingthe second respondent to take a decision on the application forcondonation of delay within two months from the date of receiptof a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to saythat if the delay in preferring the appeals is condoned, ordersshall be passed on the applications for stay preferred by thepetitioner also within the time stipulated. Needless also to saythat until orders are passed on the application for condonation ofdelay or the application for stay, as the case may be, furtherproceedings for realisation of the amounts covered byassessment order shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. SKS