Disposed

L.Rajendran, v. the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)

Kerala HC6 Jan 2022WP(C)/250/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala issued directions in a writ petition filed by a taxpayer aggrieved by an assessment order. The court directed the appellate authority to consider a stay petition within three months and kept coercive proceedings in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent appellate authority to consider the stay petition within three months and keep coercive proceedings in abeyance.

L.Rajendran, Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 250 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 16TH POUSHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 250 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

L.RAJENDRAN,
AGED 68 YEARS
SON OF LAKSHMANA PANIKAR, RESIDING AT MEDIYAL VEEDU, ULOOR,
VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 035.
BY ADVS.
N.KRISHNA PRASAD
P.SHANES METHAR
DEEPAK VARUGHESE MATHEW

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS),
(III),
KOCHI, APPEAL AUTHORITY SECOND FLOOR, SAN JUAN TOWERS,
KOCHI 682 018.

¶10

2THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
CENTRAL CIRCLE, AAYKAR, BHAVAN, PEROORKADA ROAD, KOWDIAR,
POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

ADV. JOSE JOSEPH-SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 250 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶17

======================== W.P.(C)No.250 of 2022

¶18

------------------------------------------------

¶19

Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2022

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment relating to assessment year 2011-12, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. A petition for stay of proceedings pursuant to the assessment order has also been filed as Ext.P8. Petitioner apprehends coercive proceedings to be effected even before the petition for stay is considered. Hence this writ petition.

¶22

Having considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction.

¶23

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the competent appellate authority to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 stay petition, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellate authority will also be at liberty to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner, if circumstances

¶24

WP(C) NO. 250 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

so warrants. Till such a decision is taken by the appellate authority, all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.

¶27

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶28

sd/

¶29

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶30

jm/

¶31

WP(C) NO. 250 OF 2022

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 250/2022

¶34

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ASSESSMENT OF THE SECOND
RESPONDENT DATED 07.12.2017.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DATED 07.12.2017.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL FILED BEFORE
THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE INCOME TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 367/COCH/2017
DATED 17.12.2018.
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.12.2021.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.12.2021.
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.12.2021.
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 03.01.2022
FILED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT WITHOUT THE
DOCUMENTS ANNEXURES MENTIONED THEREIN.

L.Rajendran, v. the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Rajendran, v. the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)

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

Maniyammal Vs Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Gmmco Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of State Tax

Cynosure Power Systems Vs Assistant Commissioner (Works Contract)

Rajan R. Vs the Authorised Officer, Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Ltd.

Koorakkadan Ebrahim Rasheed Vs the Income Tax Officer

Jolly C.I Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb