High Court of KeralaWP(C)/4292/2015disposed of

Sri. N.A.Baby v. The Income Tax Officer

2015-02-11Honourable Dr. Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/22ND MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 4292 of 2015 (J) --------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- SRI. N.A.BABY, NEREPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA, VARAKKARA, THRISSUR.

BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR SRI.R.SREEJITH SMT.C.S.SULEKHA BEEVI SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH SMT.MANEESHA KUMAR RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), THRISSUR - 680 001.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ERNAKULAM - 682 016.

BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 4292 of 2015 (J) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------- EXT.P-1:

TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.7.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

EXT.P-2:

TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P-3:

TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

EXT.P-4:

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXT.P-5:

TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

- NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE mbr/

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

................................................. W.P.(C) No.4292 of 2015 (J) ............................................... Dated this the 11th day of February, 2015

JUDGMENT

Against Ext.P1 penalty order issued under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2008 - 2009, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P5 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 penalty order.

2. I have heard Sri.Anil D.Nair, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Jose Joseph, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 stay petition, preferred by the petitioner before him, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The order to be passed by the 2nd respondent shall contain reasons for the decision arrived at by him.

W.P.(C) No.4292 of 2015 (J) Coercive steps for recovery of the penalty due under Ext.P1 penalty order, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as the 2nd respondent passes orders, as directed above, and communicates the same to the petitioner.

Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE AMV/11/02/