CHD HOUSING BOARD vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
CWP/10993/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01062849201029 June 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for the revenue. The revenue's counsel stated that they had no objection to the interim order against the recovery continuing till the decision of the appeal. Therefore, the Court implicitly accepted the assessee's plea for a stay on recovery pending the appeal. The issue of the non-speaking nature of the impugned order was not explicitly decided, but the operative direction was to stay the recovery. The Court did not decide the merits of the assessment itself, only the procedural aspect of recovery during the pendency of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Chandigarh Housing Board (assessee) was assessed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (respondent) for assessment year(s) not specified, resulting in a demand of Rs. 329.48 crores via an order dated 28.12.2009. The assessee filed an appeal under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act, which was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Initially, the demand was stayed until 31.5.2010. However, the assessee was subsequently asked to deposit the assessed tax by an order dated 4/7.6.2010, despite the pending appeal. The assessee filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging this demand and the non-speaking nature of the impugned order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the recovery of the demand raised against the petitioner should be stayed pending the decision of its appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), especially when the impugned order demanding deposit is non-speaking. Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that despite an initial stay on the demand, which was extended, they were asked to deposit the tax while their appeal was still pending. They also contended that the impugned order demanding the deposit was non-speaking. The petitioner relied on the judgment in Sat Pal v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and others (CWP No. 11081 of 1995). Revenue's contentions: The revenue's counsel had no objection to the interim order against recovery continuing until the decision of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 246

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 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 made by the respondents vide order dated 28.12.2009 and accordingly demand of a sum of Rs.329.48 crores was raised. The appeal against the aforesaid order filed by the Board under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that despite the fact that the respondent-Department initially stayed the demand as per the order dated 9.3.2010 Annexure P-7 which was duly extended -2- vide order dated 29.4.2010 (Annexure P-9) upto 31.5.2010, the petitioner has been asked to deposit the tax as assessed, vide order dated 4/7.6.2010 (Annexure P-11), whereas the appeal of the petitioner is still pending. Moreover, the impugned order is non-speaking. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Sat Pal v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and others, decided on 18.9.1995 (CWP No. 11081 of 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 interim order against the recovery continuing till the decision of the appeal.

3.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the statement of learned counsel for the revenue. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE June 29, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE

More judgments on Section 246

All 130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 246 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →