SHRI.ABDULLA.C v. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), KOZHIKODE/ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CALICUT RANGE, CALICUT/ THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, KOZHIKODE
[Citation -2015-LL-1102-3]
Citation | 2015-LL-1102-3 |
---|---|
Appellant Name | SHRI.ABDULLA.C |
Respondent Name | THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), KOZHIKODE/ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CALICUT RANGE, CALICUT/ THE TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, KOZHIKODE |
Court | HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM |
Relevant Act | Income-tax |
Date of Order | 02/11/2015 |
Judgment | View Judgment |
Keyword Tags | stay petition |
Bot Summary: | NO.33207 OF 2015 ------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2015 JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 assessment order passed under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal and P2(a) stay petition before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are sought to be pursued for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P1 assessment order. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I dispose the writ petition with the following directions: i. The 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P2(a) stay petition within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Coercive steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P1 assessment order, including further steps pursuant to the attachment of the property of the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for further action. The order to be passed by the 2nd respondent shall be a reasoned one adverting to the contentions of the petitioner regarding existence of a prima facie case for a stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeal. |