M/S HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CWP/335/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01094069201614 May 2018Author: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had since decided the appeals relating to the penalty for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, and the appeal effect had been given. Consequently, both parties agreed that the writ petition had become infructuous. The Court ordered accordingly, disposing of the writ petition as infructuous without deciding the merits of the original challenge. No specific finding was given on the original demand or penalty, as the matter was rendered moot by subsequent events.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Haryana Urban Development Authority, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a demand notice dated December 8, 2015, issued under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1995, and an order dated January 6, 2016, on a stay application for Assessment Year 2011-12. The petitioner also sought to keep in abeyance a penalty demand of ₹2,43,07,94,350/- during the pendency of their appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decided the penalty appeals for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12, and the appeal effect was given. A copy of this order dated March 21, 2018, was filed in court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition seeking to quash the demand notice and stay the penalty amount is maintainable in light of subsequent developments? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the demand notice and keep the penalty in abeyance pending appeal. The primary issue became moot due to the subsequent order of the CIT(A). Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not present specific arguments on the merits of the original challenge, as both parties agreed that the writ petition had become infructuous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 156

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 14.05.2018 M/s Haryana Urban Development Authority . . . Petitioner(s) Versus The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula . . . 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 with Mr. M.S. Kanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for 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 08th 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 2011-12. A further prayer has also been made for directing the respondents to keep in abeyance the demand of penalty amounting to `2,43,07,94,350/-, 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 Jawala Ram 2018.05.18 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh - 2 - 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, 2018 J.Ram (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2018.05.18 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

More judgments on Section 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →