WP(C) Nos.3115/2010 & 3119/2010 Page No.1 of 3 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 WP(C) Nos.3115/2010 & 3119/2010 Page No.2 of 3 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. WP(C) Nos.3115/2010 & 3119/2010 Page No.3 of 3 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