M/S.NAVIKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/28TH KARTHIKA, 1936 WP(C).No. 30828 of 2014 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : ------------------- M/S.NAVIKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AGED 42 YEARS NO 964, NP/1/1057, ETHUACAD JUNCTION NAVAIKULAM POST-695501 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. REP BY ITS SECRETARY IN CHARGE BINDHU D/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, SECRETARY IN CHARGE M/S.NAVAIKULAM SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO 964 NP 1/1057, ETHUCAD JUNCTION, NAVAIKULAM POST-695501 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST BY ADVS.SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENTS : ----------------------- 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , KERALA STATE-695001 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , KERALA STATE, 695001 BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: bp

WP(C).No. 30828 of 2014 (C) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DTD 27/3/2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DTD 27/10/2014 FILED IN EXT P2 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ======================== W.P.(C). No. 30828 of 2014 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2014 JUDGMENT Being aggrieved of Ext.P1 assessment order passed by the first respondent under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 appeal, along with Ext.P3 petition for stay, which are pending consideration before the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that, without any regard to the pendency of the above proceedings, the respondents are proceeding with coercive steps, which hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court.