IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 20806 of 2008
Date of Decision: October 26, 2009
M/s Bharat Medical Store
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. Ravi Shankar, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate,
for respondent Nos. 2 and 4.
Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Prashant Bansal, Advocate,
for respondent No. 3.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
It is not disputed that the petitioner has already filed appeal against
the order of assessment which has emanated from notice dated 18.10.2007 (P-1).
The allegation with regard to notice dated 18.10.2007 (P-1) is that it is a bogus
document in order to save the period of limitation. A perusal of the
memorandum of appeal (R-1) shows that similar grounds have been pleaded
before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in respect of the assessment
year 2006-07 passed in pursuance to the impugned notice (P-1). It is also
conceded position that assessment order thereafter was passed on 28.12.2008 (P-
C.W.P. No. 20806 of 2008 2
14). Accordingly, once the remedy of appeal has been availed and is pending, we
are not inclined to entertain the petition. Moreso, disputed questions of fact are
involved which can be appropriately decided by the appellate forum.
Accordingly, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, it is
made clear that any observation made in this order shall not be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merit of the appeal.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(JASWANT SINGH)
October 26, 2009 JUDGE
Pkapoor