Aniyan Mathew v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Range-1, Thrissur / The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Thrissur
[Citation -2019-LL-1220-66]
| Citation | 2019-LL-1220-66 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Aniyan Mathew |
| Respondent Name | The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1(1), Range-1, Thrissur / The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Thrissur |
| Court | HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 20/12/2019 |
| Assessment Year | 2011-12, 2012-13 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Keyword Tags | stay petition |
| Bot Summary: | No.35327 OF 2019(M) 2 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P9 conditional order of stay passed by the 2nd respondent Tribunal in a stay application filed along with an appeal against an assessment order under the Income Tax Act. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P9 order does not give any reason as to why the petitioner was required to pay a portion of the demanded amount as a condition for grant of stay of the remaining amount, pending disposal of the appeal. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer 2014(2) KHC 360. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar and following the judgment of this Court in Archana Agencies, I dispose this writ petition by quashing Ext.P9 order and directing the 2 nd respondent to pass fresh orders in the said application, after hearing the petitioner and taking note of the observations in the judgment referred above. The 2nd respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. |