SMT.SANTHADHARAN V. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2

WP(C)/11650/2012

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Santhadharan, the petitioner, who challenged an assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner had previously appealed the assessment order, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another appeal and a stay petition with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, which were still pending. The writ petition was filed to halt the coercive proceedings initiated based on the assessment order while the stay application was pending.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 755936 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: JOSE JOSEPH; R S KALKURA
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN; NISHA JOHN; V P NARAYANAN; BOBY SEKHAR
• Keywords: Appeal; Assessment Order; Coercive Proceedings; Income Tax; Stay Petition

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2012/1ST JYAISHTA 1934 WP(C).No. 11650 of 2012 (E) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : --------------------- SMT.SANTHADHARAN, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.LATE R.VIDYADHARAN, 'VIDHYA',CHAYAKUDI LANE, PETTAH, PALLIMUKKU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.) SMT.NISHA JOHN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR RESPONDENT(S) : ------------------------ 1. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, KERA BHAVAN, SRV HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, IST FLOOR (BLOCK C-I & C II), KENDRIYA BHAVAN, OPP.CSEZ, KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 695 014. 4. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, PETTAH BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. 5. THE SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX BY SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC, SBT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AMV WP(C).No. 11650 of 2012 (E) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : P1. : COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 15.12.2010 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2. : COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30.04.2012 IN ITA NO.126/TCENT/TVM/CIT(A)- 1112010-11 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3. : COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 10.05.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4. : COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 17.05.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5. : COPY OF NOTICE NO.PAN:AFSPN6853R/ACIT/CC- 2/TVM DATED 14.05.2012 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P6. : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.05.2012 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE AMV P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 11650 of 2012 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2012 JUDGMENT The challenge against Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the first respondent before the first appellate authority, did not turn fruitful, as evident from Ext.P2 order passed by the second respondent. Met with the situation, petitioner preferred further appeal before the third respondent as borne by Ext.P3 along with Ext.P4 petition for stay, which are stated as pending consideration. Grievance is in respect of the coercive proceedings pursued in the meanwhile, which is sought to be intercepted in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the department as well. 3. After hearing both the sides, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the third respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 I.A. for stay, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'six weeks' W.P.C. No.11650 of 2012 -2- from the date of receipt of a copy the judgment. The 'status quo', as on date, shall be maintained till such time. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the third respondent for further steps. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. Kp/- "