Wp(C) v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals
High Court
27 Mar 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C) v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals
Date of order
27 Mar 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp(C) v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI
WEDNESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1941WP(C).No. 9506 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
THE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITEDTHRISSUR, SAHAKARANA SATABDHI MANDIRAM, KOVILAKATHUMPADAM, THRISSUR - 680 022, REPRESENTED BYITS GENERAL MANAGER IN-CHARGE
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
RESPONDENT/S:
1THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALSTHRISSUR - 680 001
2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE 2(1), RANGE - 2, THRISSUR - 680 0013THE STATE BANK OF INDIAREPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, MAIN BRANCH, THRISSUR - 680 001
SMT. ALEENA MARIA JOSE., SRI. G. G MANOJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel for thepetitioner, Smt.Aleena Maria Jose, the learned Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax and Sri.G.G.Manoj, the learned counsel appearingfor SBI.
2. The petitioner prays for mandamus directing the 1[st]
respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 stay petitionexpeditiously. The reason for invoking the writ jurisdiction of thisCourt is due to the notice dated 26.03.2019 issued by 2[nd] respondentto 3[rd] respondent under Section 222 to 225 of the Incone Tax Act,1961.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that theAssessment Order, Ext.P1 has not become final and statutory appealis filed and also Ext.P6 stay petition is moved. The recovery in theinterregnum of the disputed tax if is effected, the petitioner suffershardship and the appeal would become ineffective. The submissionsare merely noted and this Court is of the view that timely disposalof Ext.P6 stay petition is warranted in the facts and circumstancesin the case. Hence the writ petition is disposed of by this order:-
W.P.(C)NO.9506/19 3
(a) 1[st] respondent considers and disposes of Ext.P6 stay petition as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from today.The recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 Assessment Order andExt.P8 notice are stayed for two months from today.
Sd/-
S.V.BHATTI JUDGE
Ac
W.P.(C)NO.9506/19 4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATE 29/12/2018
EXHIBIT P2
TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE
EXHIBIT P3
TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTATION SHEET DATED 29/12/2018
EXHIBIT P4
TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 16/1/2019
EXHIBIT P5EXHIBIT P6
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/3/2019
TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 16/3/2019
EXHIBIT P7
TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN RECEIPT DATED 26/3/2019
EXHIBIT P8
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/3/2019
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//Sd/- PA 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.