Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
ABDULLA MALANAD ABDUL ASHRAF – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 47195 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.PADMANATHAN K.V., SRI.R.SREEJITH
For the Respondents: SHRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC

The court emphasized the necessity of timely resolution on stay petitions during pending appeal processes under the Income Tax Act.

Headnote:The petitioner, as an assessee under the Income Tax Act, challenges the rectification order as per Ext.P2 leading to appeal Ext.P3 and stay petition Ext.P4 regarding recovery actions by the respondents. The court framed the issues surrounding the appeal process, emphasizing the necessity for a timely response to the stay petition. The court ordered that the 2nd respondent decide on the stay petition within two months and abate further proceedings on Ext.P2 until such decision.

Table of Content
1. challenge to assessment order and rectification process (Para 1 , 2)
2. court ordered stay on further recovery proceedings (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act . Ext.P1 is the assessment order pertaining to the assessment year 2020-2021 and later the said order was rectified as per Ext.P2 order. Challenging Ext.P2, Ext.P3 appeal was filed. Along with Ext.P3, Ext.P4 stay petition was also submitted.

2. Grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the recovery that is being pursued by the respondents, pending consideration of the appeal and the stay petition. This writ petition is submitted in such circumstances.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the 2^nd respondent shall take up Ext.P4 stay petition and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment. Till such a decision is taken, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JABDULLA MALANAD ABDUL ASHRAF – AppellantVersusASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU – RespondentWP(C) NO. 47195 OF 2025

The court emphasized the necessity of timely resolution on stay petitions during pending appeal processes under the Income Tax Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
ABDULLA MALANAD ABDUL ASHRAF – Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 47195 OF 2025