Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructuredevelopment Corporation Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17633 of 2017 (O&M)Date of decision:20.12.2017 Haryana State Industrial and InfrastructureDevelopment Corporation Limited ... Petitioner Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:-Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.S.Kanda, Advocatefor the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counselfor the respondent-Revenue. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL) 1.In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in thenature of certiorari for quashing the Demand Notice dated 21.06.2017 and22.06.2017 [Annexure P-9(colly)] under Section 156 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (in short '1961 Act') and order dated 01.08.2017 (Annexure P-22)passed by respondent No.1 under Section 220(6) of 1961 Act declining theapplication for stay of recovery of demand during the pendency of the firstappeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2.At the outset, learned counsel for the revenue submitted thatappeal filed by the assessee-petitioner for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2013-14 have been decided by the Tribunal and the appeal effect has beengiven. It was stated that after adjusting the same against arrears and currentdemand, an amount of `15 crore is still payable to make 20% of the totaloutstanding demand which is recoverable from the assessee. A copy of thecommunication dated 20.12.2017 addressed to Sh. Yogesh Putney, SeniorStanding Counsel by the office of the Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax, Panchkula, has been produced in Court today. The same is taken onrecord. A copy thereof has been handed over to the learned counsel for thepetitioner. 3.In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitionersubmitted that the present writ petition may be disposed of as infructuous bygranting liberty to the petitioner to lay challenge to the appeal effect orderand also to the aforesaid communication dated 20.12.2017 in accordancewith law. 4.In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of asinfructuous. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge theappeal effect order and also the communication dated 20.12.2017 by takingrecourse to the remedies as may be available to it, in accordance with law. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE December 20, 2017savitaWhether Speaking/ReasonedWhether Reportable (AMIT RAWAL)JUDGE Yes/NoYes/No