Skip to content


Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
AppellantPunjab Urban Planning and Development Authority
RespondentAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Excerpt:
.....the commissioner of income tax (appeals) which is also pending consideration. the petitioner has filed application for stay of the demand which is not decided. the grievance is that even when no orders are passed in the said application, at the same time, the demand notice dated 19.11.2012 is sent directing the petitioner to pay the amount of tax assessed within 30 days. so far as the amount assessed as tax is concerned, that has already been recovered by the income-tax authorities. cwp-25127-2012 -2- 2. once the appeal is preferred against the order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the said act, and the petitioner has filed application for stay of the payment, the least that is expected is to hear the applicant and decide the application on merits. without allowing the petitioner to.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.25127 of 2012 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: December 18, 2012 Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority …..Petitioner versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, JUDGE Present: Mr.Rupinder Khosla, Advocate for the petitioner .A.K.SIKRI, C.J.: (Oral) 1.

The petitioner, which is a public sector undertaking and a statutory authority, has filed this writ petition.

It is pointed out that against the quantum assessment, the appeal is preferred which is pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

It is also submitted that against the penalty order passed under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, consequent upon quantum assessment, appeal is preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which is also pending consideration.

The petitioner has filed application for stay of the demand which is not decided.

The grievance is that even when no orders are passed in the said application, at the same time, the demand notice dated 19.11.2012 is sent directing the petitioner to pay the amount of tax assessed within 30 days.

So far as the amount assessed as tax is concerned, that has already been recovered by the Income-Tax authorities.

CWP-25127-2012 -2- 2.

Once the appeal is preferred against the order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the said Act, and the petitioner has filed application for stay of the payment, the least that is expected is to hear the applicant and decide the application on merits.

Without allowing the petitioner to avail such a chance, the recovery notice trying to recover the amount by coercive method, may not be appropriate.”

3. In these circumstances, we direct the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the application for stay within one month from today.

No coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of the amount of tax at least after a period of one week after the decision.”

4. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

( A.K.SIKRI ) CHIEF JUSTICE December 18, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) pc JUDGE


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //