IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.6596 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.4.2011 Chandigarh Housing Board. -----Petitioner. Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & others. -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for respondents. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 8.4.2011, Annexure P-11, declining to keep in abeyance the demand of tax. 2. Case of the petitioner is that it is a statutory body created under the provisions of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971, as applicable to the Union Territory, Chandigarh. Demand of tax has been created against the petitioner in income tax proceedings for the assessment year 2008-09 to the extent of about `17.5 crores. Appeal of the petitioner is pending before the CIT(A). The issue raised in the said appeal is identical to issue arising for the assessment year 2007-08, in respect of which appeal is also pending before the Tribunal and fixed for hearing C.W.P. No. 6596 of 2011 on 20.4.2011. In that case, this Court dealt with the matter of stay in C.W.P. No.14529 of 2010 Chandigarh Housing Board v. Sunil Kumar Yadav decided on 17.8.2010 and recorded the statement on behalf of the petitioner that out of the Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) which were for higher amount than the demand of tax, the petitioner will not encash the said FDRs to the extent of its tax liability. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes similar statement in respect of tax liability of the petitioner for the assessment year 2008-09 and also states that the amount of FDRs in favour of the petitioner is more than the tax liability under the impugned demand. 3. On our asking, Ms. Dhugga, learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department has accepted the notice and made submissions. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this petition in terms of earlier order directing that no coercive steps for recovery be taken subject to the condition that the petitioner will not encash the FDRs to the extent of further amount of tax liability for the assessment year 2008-09. This order will be operative during pendency of appeal before the CIT (A). (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE April 19, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2