Back
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
| 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 2nd 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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
