IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
MANOJ K V – Appellant
Versus
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1) – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 13826 OF 2026
JUDGMENT
The petitioner being aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment and Exts.P2 to P4 orders of penalty, submitted rectification applications. The said applications were rejected by the authority as per Exts.P5 to P8. As against the same, Exts.P9 to P12 appeals were filed. As there was delay in filing Ext.P9 appeal, Ext.P9(a) delay petition was submitted. Exts.P9(b), P10(a), P11(a), P12(a) are the stay petitions submitted along with the aforesaid appeals. The petitioner is aggrieved by the recovery proceedings that are being pursued pending consideration of the aforesaid applications and appeals.
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 3rd respondent shall take up Ext.P9(a) delay petition and Exts.P9(b), P10(a), P11(a), P12(a) stay petitions and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after giving the petitioner an opportunity for being heard. It is clarified that, Ext.P9(b) stay application needs to be considered, only if the appellate authority decides to condone the delay by considering Ext.P9(a) application. Till such orders are passed, the recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts.P1 to P8 shall be kept in abeyance.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.