In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
C.W.P. No. 1468 of 2009
Date of Decision: February 5, 2009
Sukhwinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA
Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate, with
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Rajan Verma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The assessee-petitioner has approached this Court for
quashing order of assessment dated 30.12.2008 (P-14), for the
assessment year 2006-2007, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward
No. 2, Sector 13, Karnal, alleging that the same is without jurisdiction
including all subsequent proceedings.
It is undisputed that the petitioner till 2005-2006 was
transacting his business within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 2, Sector 13, Karnal. He has been
filing his regular income tax return at Karnal. However, he filed the
return for the assessment year 2006-2007 with the ITO, Ward No. 38
(III), New Delhi and has claimed that even the PAN number allotted
C.W.P. No. 1468 of 2009 2
to him was also shifted. When the Assessing Authority, Karnal,
issued notice under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, reply
was filed by the petitioner asserting that he has been assessed at New
Delhi. However, the Assessing Officer, after further issuing notices,
proceeded to frame best judgment assessment and notice was issued
for initiating penalty proceedings. It has also come on record that
against the order of the Assessing Officer, the petitioner has filed
appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for both
the years. The appeals were dismissed. It is admitted position that
the matter is pending in appeals before the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, New Delhi. The Assessing Officer has also rejected the
prayer of the assessee-petitioner for keeping the demand in abeyance.
Even the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax as well as
Commissioner of Income Tax have dismissed his application. Even
those orders are subject matter of appeal before the ITAT, New Delhi.
We have heard learned counsel and do not find any
ground to interfere with the orders of the Assessing Officer. The
matter regarding stay of the demand raised is pending before the
Tribunal. At this stage we cannot admit this petition as it would be
wholly premature. We also refrain from making any observation on
merit although some argument was advanced on the question of
jurisdiction and shifting of the ward. Accordingly, the writ petition
fails and the same is dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(H.S. BHALLA)
C.W.P. No. 1468 of 2009 3
February 5, 2009 JUDGE
Pkapoor