Disposed

Sfo Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner

Kerala HC17 Dec 2018WP(C)/41020/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner assessees filed a writ petition seeking direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of pending appeal and stay petition for assessment year 2010-11. Court directed respondent to decide within three months and deferred recovery.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on appeal and stay petition within three months, deferring recovery for the interim.

Sfo Technologies Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 41020 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SFO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED PLOT NO.2,COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE,KAKKANAD,COCHIN 682 037 REPRESENTED BY COMPANY SECRETARY K PADMANABHAN

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.GOKULRAJ L. SMT.ARYA ANIL SMT.NILOOFAR O.NIZAM SRI.SREEJITH R NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX,CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1),KOCHI.

¶11

2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11, KOCHI 682 018

¶12

BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 41020 of 2018

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner, who is an assessee under the

¶18

Income Tax Act, 1961, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kochi to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition, as expeditiously as possible.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶20

and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department representing respondents 1 and 2.

¶21

The pleadings and materials on record would show that the assessment for the year 2010-11 was

¶22

completed by the 1^st respondent Assistant Commissioner under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax

¶23

Act, by Ext.P1 order of assessment. Feeling

¶24

aggrieved, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal before the 2^nd respondent, along with Ext.P3 stay petition. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition are

¶25

WP(C).No. 41020 of 2018

¶26

¶27

still pending consideration before the 2^nd

¶28

respondent.

¶29

The learned Standing Counsel for the Income

¶30

Tax Department would submit that the 2^nd respondent

¶31

shall consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 stay petition filed along with Ext.P2 appeal, as expeditiously as possible.

¶32

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 stay petition filed along with Ext.P2 appeal, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of

¶33

a certified copy of this judgment.

¶34

Till such time, any recovery pursuant to Ext.P1

¶35

order will stand deferred.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

ANIL K.NARENDRAN,JUDGE

¶38

AV/17/12

¶39

WP(C).No. 41020 of 2018

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-11 DATED 26.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶44

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE A.Y.2010-11 FILED AND PENDING BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 21.4.2014

¶45

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE A.Y.2010-11 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Sfo Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sfo Technologies Limited v. Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gangadharan T.V Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Kabeer Vs the Regional Transport Authority

The Tirur Co-Operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sfo Technologies Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner

Sulthan Bathery Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

Perumbavoor Hotels and Resorts Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Kerala