In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 1468 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 5, 2009 Sukhwinder Singh …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate, with Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Rajan Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The assessee-petitioner has approached this Court for quashing order of assessment dated 30.12.2008 (P-14), for the assessment year 2006-2007, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 2, Sector 13, Karnal, alleging that the same is without jurisdiction including all subsequent proceedings. It is undisputed that the petitioner till 2005-2006 was transacting his business within the territorial jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 2, Sector 13, Karnal. He has been filing his regular income tax return at Karnal. However, he filed the return for the assessment year 2006-2007 with the ITO, Ward No. 38 (III), New Delhi and has claimed that even the PAN number allotted C.W.P. No. 1468 of 2009 to him was also shifted. When the Assessing Authority, Karnal, issued notice under Section 142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, reply was filed by the petitioner asserting that he has been assessed at New Delhi. However, the Assessing Officer, after further issuing notices, proceeded to frame best judgment assessment and notice was issued for initiating penalty proceedings. It has also come on record that against the order of the Assessing Officer, the petitioner has filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for both the years. The appeals were dismissed. It is admitted position that the matter is pending in appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Assessing Officer has also rejected the prayer of the assessee-petitioner for keeping the demand in abeyance. Even the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax as well as Commissioner of Income Tax have dismissed his application. Even those orders are subject matter of appeal before the ITAT, New Delhi. We have heard learned counsel and do not find any ground to interfere with the orders of the Assessing Officer. The matter regarding stay of the demand raised is pending before the Tribunal. At this stage we cannot admit this petition as it would be wholly premature. We also refrain from making any observation on merit although some argument was advanced on the question of jurisdiction and shifting of the ward. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) 2 C.W.P. No. 1468 of 2009 February 5, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3