Pawan Jaggi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 2495 Del

             THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                    Judgment delivered on: 10.05.2010

+            W.P.(C) 3115/2010

JYOTI JAGGI                                                  ..... Petitioner
                                    - versus -

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(CENTRAL)-I & ORS                                            ..... Respondent

AND + W.P.(C) 3119/2010

PAWAN JAGGI ..... Petitioner

- versus -

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL)-I & ORS ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:-

For the Petitioner : Mr Sudhanshu Batra with Mr Bhuvan Guguani For the Respondent : Ms Sonia Mathur

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

CM 6265/2010 & CM 6271/2010

Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

WP(C) 3115/2010 & WP(C) 3119/2010

1. These writ petitions have been filed seeking quashing of orders

dated 05.01.2010 and 11.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Income

Tax rejecting the stay applications filed by the petitioner. The original

assessments made in respect of the petitioner had been set aside by the

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the same were remanded to the

Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. Consequent thereto the

Assessing Officer, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has

virtually repeated the original assessment orders. An application under

Section 220(6) for stay was moved before the Assessing Officer which was

rejected. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the applications invoking the

revisional powers of Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 264 of the

Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking stay of the demand consequent upon the

assessment orders. The same were rejected firstly by the order dated

05.01.2010 and once again by the order dated 11.02.2010, as the petitioners

were not coming forth with a payment plan. We are not inclined to interfere

with those orders.

2. The petitioners' second contention was that while the stay has

not been granted to the petitioners, the appeals filed by the petitioners are

also not being heard for one reason or the other. He requests that at least

hearing of the appeals be expedited. We have also heard the counsel for the

respondent, who assured this Court that the appeals would be disposed of

within six weeks. We note that the appeals were filed sometime in January,

2009. We make it clear that the petitioners shall not seek any adjournment

before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioners shall

also cooperate with the said Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the

appeal proceedings.

3. We feel that, in view of the statement made by the learned

counsel for the respondent that the appeals would be disposed of within six

weeks, we are not required to pass any further directions in these writ

petitions. The same stand disposed of. All pending applications also stand

disposed of.

Dasti to both the parties.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

V.K. JAIN, J MAY 10, 2010 SR