IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10993 of 2010 Date of Decision: 29.6.2010 Chandigarh Housing Board ....Petitioner. Versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Urvashi Dugga, Advocate for the respondents. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. On 14.6.2010, the following order was passed:- “Assessment against the petitioner-Board was made by the respondents vide order dated 28.12.2009 and accordingly demand of a sum of Rs.329.48 crores was raised. The appeal against the aforesaid order filed by the Board under Section 246 of the Income Tax Act is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that despite the fact that the respondent-Department initially stayed the demand as per the order dated 9.3.2010 Annexure P-7 which was duly extended CWP No. 10993 of 2010 -2- vide order dated 29.4.2010 (Annexure P-9) upto 31.5.2010, the petitioner has been asked to deposit the tax as assessed, vide order dated 4/7.6.2010 (Annexure P-11), whereas the appeal of the petitioner is still pending. Moreover, the impugned order is non-speaking. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Sat Pal v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and others, decided on 18.9.1995 (CWP No. 11081 of 1995). Notice of motion for 29.6.2010. Till then recovery of the demand raised is stayed.” 2. Learned counsel for the revenue has no objection to interim order against the recovery continuing till the decision of the appeal. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the statement of learned counsel for the revenue. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE June 29, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE