Wp(C)/884/2019 Of Thottippal Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Income Tax Officer
High Court
11 Jan 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/884/2019 Of Thottippal Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
11 Jan 2019
Assessment year(s)
2016-17
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/884/2019 Of Thottippal Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2019) 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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
FRIDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 21ST POUSHA, 1940WP(C).No. 884 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
THOTTIPPAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITEDTHOTTIPPAL, THRISSUR-680310, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SMT.PADMAJADEVI M K.
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 2(5), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN-680001.2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN-680001.
WARD 2(5), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN
OTHER PRESENT:
GP.SMT. M.M. JASMINE.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). No. 884 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, onthe rolls of the 1[st] respondent, questioned the Ext.P1 assessment
order, before the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner has also filed astay petition in the appeal. Ventilating his grievance that theauthorities are taking coercive steps before the appellateauthority could consider the stay petition, the petitioner hasfiled this writ petition.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and thelearned Government Pleader.
3.I reckon the petitioner has exercised on time hisstatutory remedy of filing an appeal. It appears that he has alsofiled a stay petition. Procedural fairness demands that theauthorities may wait, before taking further steps, until theappellate authority decides on the stay petition.
Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing therespondent authority to defer coercive steps until the 2[nd]
W.P.(C). No. 884 of 2019
respondent considers the stay petition. I also hope that the 2[nd]respondent will dispose of the stay petition expeditiously.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
JUDGE
das
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17.12.18 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17.EXHIBIT P2COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 7.1.2019 AGAINST EXT.P1.EXHIBIT P3COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.1.2019.
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.