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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.6596 of 2011Date of decision: 19.4.2011 Chandigarh Housing Board. -----Petitioner. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & others. -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocatefor the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counselfor respondents. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 8.4.2011,Annexure P-11, declining to keep in abeyance the demand of tax.2. Case of the petitioner is that it is a statutory bodycreated under the provisions of the Haryana Housing Board Act,1971, as applicable to the Union Territory, Chandigarh. Demandof tax has been created against the petitioner in income taxproceedings for the assessment year 2008-09 to the extent ofabout `17.5 crores. Appeal of the petitioner is pending before theCIT(A). The issue raised in the said appeal is identical to issuearising for the assessment year 2007-08, in respect of whichappeal is also pending before the Tribunal and fixed for hearing on 20.4.2011. In that case, this Court dealt with the matter ofstay in C.W.P. No.14529 of 2010Chandigarh Housing Boardv.Sunil Kumar Yadavdecided on 17.8.2010 and recorded thestatement on behalf of the petitioner that out of the Fixed DepositReceipts (FDRs) which were for higher amount than the demandof tax, the petitioner will not encash the said FDRs to the extent ofits tax liability. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes similarstatement in respect of tax liability of the petitioner for theassessment year 2008-09 and also states that the amount ofFDRs in favour of the petitioner is more than the tax liability underthe impugned demand. 3. On our asking, Ms. Dhugga, learned Sr. StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department has accepted the noticeand made submissions. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, wedispose of this petition in terms of earlier order directing that nocoercive steps for recovery be taken subject to the condition thatthe petitioner will not encash the FDRs to the extent of furtheramount of tax liability for the assessment year 2008-09. Thisorder will be operative during pendency of appeal before the CIT(A). (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE April 19, 2011ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE