Tony Mathew Joseph vs The Assessment Unit
2024 Latest Caselaw 14483 Ker

Kerala High Court

Tony Mathew Joseph vs The Assessment Unit on 31 May, 2024

Author: Murali Purushothaman

Bench: Murali Purushothaman

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
  FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                    WP(C) NO. 19620 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:

            TONY MATHEW JOSEPH
            AGED 47 YEARS
            S/O PHILOMINA MATHEW 207 BLDG NO.4, KAMDHENU CHS
            LTD LOKHANDWALA COMPLEX ANDHERI(W) MUMBAI-400053
            MAHARASTRA NOW RESIDING AT MALIYIL HOUSE ARTHAT
            KUNNAMANGALAM THRISSUR, PIN - 680523
            BY ADV DIVYA RAVINDRAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE ASSESSMENT UNIT
            INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT
            CENTER, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE INCOME TAX
            OFFICER., PIN - 110001
    2       THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
            NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER (NFAC), NEW
            DELHI., PIN - 110001

            BY SC- CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
     THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   31.05.2024,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).No.19620 OF 2024

                                2



                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an assessee under the

Income Tax Act. Against Ext.P1 ex-parte

assessment order under Section 147 of the

Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2019-20,

the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 appeal before the

2nd respondent. The petitioner has also preferred

Ext.P3 stay petition.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that

during the pendency of Ext.P2 appeal steps are

being taken for realisation of the amount under

Ext.P1.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for

respondents.

W.P(C).No.19620 OF 2024

Since Ext.P2 is a statutory appeal, there will

be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider

Ext.P3 stay petition as expeditiously as possible,

at any rate, within a period of two months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till

such time, there shall not be any recovery steps

pursuant to Ext.P1.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE al/-

W.P(C).No.19620 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19620/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S 144 OF THE ACT DATED 09.03.2024 FOR AY 2019-20 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 04.04.2024 FILED AGAINST THE EXT P1 ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2019-20 IN FORM

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FOR AY 2019-20 FILED AGAINST THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED ALONG WITH EXT P1 ORDER