M/S Haryana Urban Development Authority v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panchkula

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 334 of 2016 Decided on : 14.05.2018 M/s Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula . . . Petitioner(s) . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA PRESENT: Ms. Radhika Suri, Sr. Advocate withMr. M.S. Kanda, Advocatefor the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counselfor the respondent. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, A.C.J. (Oral) The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the demand notice issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1995 (in short 'the IT Act'), dated 08[th] December, 2015 (Annexure P-6) as well as the order passed on 06.01.2016 (Annexure P-10) on the stay application for the Assessment Year 2009-10. A further prayer has also been made for directing the respondents to keep in abeyance the demand of penalty amounting to `1,99,07,63,318/-, during the pendency of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax. 2.At the outset, learned counsel for the parties submitted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panchkula [in short 'CIT(A)'], has since decided the appeals relating to penalty and the appeal effect has also been given to the said order for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. In support of the aforesaid contention, a copy of the order dated 21.03.2018, passed by the CIT(A) has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. 3.In view of the above, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such. 4.Ordered accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE May 14, 2018J.Ram (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/NoWhether Reportable: Yes/No