1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.339 OF 2010 M/s. Nutan Warehousing Co. Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner. Vs. Union of India and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. S.R. Borulkar with Mr. Rahul Hakani i/b Mr. Kirit J. Hakani for the Petitioner. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the Respondents. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. 18th February, 2010. P.C.: 1. The challenge in these proceedings under Article 226 is to a notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune on 27th November, 2009 under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By the notice M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited and M/s. Batco Cargo Movers Limited had been directed to pay to the Income Tax Department any amount due from the aforesaid parties to the Petitioner in respect of the demand for income tax outstanding for assessment years 1998-99 to 2006-07. The amount is due, it may be noted from the Petitioner to the Income Tax Department. The Petition has been heard together with Income Tax Appeal 1269 of 2007. In the appeal the Petitioner to these proceedings had impugned the correctness of an order passed by the ITAT in relation to assessment year 2001-02 by which the income received 2 by the Petitioner in respect of the transactions pertaining to the warehouse and factory at Fursungi were held to be income from house property. For the reasons already indicated in the judgment which we have delivered today, the proceedings have been remitted back to the assessing officer, for assessment year 2001-02 for a fresh assessment in accordance with law. 2. The notices which form the subject matter of the writ petition under Article 226 relate to dues towards income tax for diverse assessment years. A chart pertaining to the status of the proceedings for the assessment years has been placed on the record of the Court. From the chart which has been placed on the record by counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, it would appear that proceedings pertaining to diverse assessment years are inter alia pending before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, Pune. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner stated, during the course of the hearing that the Petitioner would move the ITAT or, as the case may be, the CIT(A) / authority before whom the proceedings are pending with a copy of the order passed by this Court today in ITA 1269 of 2007 in order that there is a consistency in the approach to be adopted by all the authorities concerned. We direct that until the Petitioner does so and for a period of eight weeks from today, the revenue shall not enforce or act in pursuance of the impugned notices dated 27th November, 2009 (Exhibits H and I). A statement has been made on behalf of the Petitioner that until orders of assessment are 3 passed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the judgment delivered in Income Tax Appeal 1269 of 2007 today, the assessee shall not claim any refund of the amount paid in pursuance of the demand. The statement is accepted. In view of the aforesaid, no further directions are sought or are necessary in these proceedings. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)