IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5877 of 2011(H) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SHAJI THOMAS, S/O. M.K.THOMMAN, AGED 46 YEARS, UP XI 725A, MAJANKAL HOUSE, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-04. BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLCE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KAUDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.5877 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of assessment the petitioner had preferred statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent as evidenced from Ext.P2. Ext.P2(a) is the stay petition filed along with the appeal. According to the petitioner the appeal as well as the stay petition are pending consideration and disposal before the 2nd respondent. Meanwhile the 1st respondent had issued Ext.P5 proceedings wherein the request to keep in abeyance steps for recovery of the amounts has been rejected. 2. Contention of the petitioner is that if the appellate authority considers the appeal on merits, there is every possibility of the appeal being allowed. It is further contended that the coercive steps of recovery has now been proceeded against without considering pendency of the appeal. Hence the petitioner seeks interference of this court to restrain the recovery steps till the disposal of the appeal. 3. Heard, standing counsel appearing for respondents. Considering the fact that the matter is in seizin of the statutory W.P.(C).5877/11 -2- appellate authority, I am not entering into the merits of the contentions raised. However, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if a direction is issued to the appellate authority to have an early disposal of the matter and till then to keep in abeyance recovery steps, subject to conditions to be imposed. 4. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 appeal after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible. 5. Till such time the appeal is disposed of by the 2nd respondent, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P1 order of assessment shall be kept in abeyance, subject to condition of the petitioner remitting 1/4th of the amount covered under Ext.P5 proceedings, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb