Sfo Technologies Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner on 17 December, 2018

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sfo Technologies Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner on 17 December, 2018

Bench: Anil K.Narendran

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

  MONDAY ,THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

                        WP(C).No. 41020 of 2018



PETITIONER/S:


                SFO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
                PLOT NO.2,COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC
                ZONE,KAKKANAD,COCHIN 682 037
                REPRESENTED BY COMPANY SECRETARY K PADMANABHAN

                BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIR
                        SRI.GOKULRAJ L.
                        SMT.ARYA ANIL
                        SMT.NILOOFAR O.NIZAM
                        SRI.SREEJITH R NAIR




RESPONDENT/S:

      1         ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
                INCOME TAX,CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1),KOCHI.

      2         COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-11,
                KOCHI 682 018



                BY SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR INCOME TAX


THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No. 41020 of 2018

                                          2

                                     JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Kochi to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition, as expeditiously as possible.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department representing respondents 1 and 2.

3. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the assessment for the year 2010-11 was completed by the 1st respondent Assistant Commissioner under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by Ext.P1 order of assessment. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal before the 2nd respondent, along with Ext.P3 stay petition. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P3 stay petition are WP(C).No. 41020 of 2018 3 still pending consideration before the 2nd respondent.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department would submit that the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 stay petition filed along with Ext.P2 appeal, as expeditiously as possible.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2 nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 stay petition filed along with Ext.P2 appeal, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Till such time, any recovery pursuant to Ext.P1 order will stand deferred.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN,JUDGE AV/17/12 WP(C).No. 41020 of 2018 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-11 DATED 26.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE A.Y.2010-11 FILED AND PENDING BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 21.4.2014 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR THE A.Y.2010-11 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court