Chandigarh Housing Board v. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10993 of 2010 Date of Decision: 29.6.2010 Chandigarh Housing Board ....Petitioner. Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and others ...Respondents. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Urvashi Dugga, Advocate for the respondents. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1.On 14.6.2010, the following order was passed:- “Assessment against the petitioner-Board was madeby the respondents vide order dated 28.12.2009 andaccordingly demand of a sum of Rs.329.48 croreswas raised. The appeal against the aforesaid orderfiled by the Board under Section 246 of the IncomeTax Act is pending before the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals). The contention of the petitioner before this Court isthat despite the fact that the respondent-Departmentinitially stayed the demand as per the order dated9.3.2010 Annexure P-7 which was duly extended vide order dated 29.4.2010 (Annexure P-9) upto31.5.2010, the petitioner has been asked to depositthe tax as assessed, vide order dated 4/7.6.2010(Annexure P-11), whereas the appeal of thepetitioner is still pending. Moreover, the impugnedorder is non-speaking. Learned counsel for thepetitioner has also relied upon a judgment of thisCourt in Sat Pal v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunaland others, decided on 18.9.1995 (CWP No. 11081of 1995). Notice of motion for 29.6.2010. Till then recovery of the demand raised is stayed.” 2.Learned counsel for the revenue has no objection to interimorder against the recovery continuing till the decision of the appeal.3.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of thestatement of learned counsel for the revenue. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE June 29, 2010gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE