- (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the demand created by respondent No. 2 of the Rs. 25,313 as demand of income-tax by disallowing the exemption provided under s. 10(14) of the IT Act. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the. controversy has been settled down by Division Bench in LIC of India vs. Union of India (2003) 179 CTR (Raj) 432 : (2003) 260 ITR 41 (Raj) and connected DEC Special Appeal No. 406/2001 decided on 22nd Jan., 2003. According to both the counsel, in view of decision of this Court, this demand of Rs. 25,313 against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
(2.) IN view of above submission of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed. The demand raised against the petitioner of Rs. 25,313 under s. 10(14) of the IT Act is quashed. Consequently, the notice of demand is also quashed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance of said demand, respondents have issued notice dt. 27th Jan., 2003 and attached the Bank account of the petitioner which is in UCO Bank, Station Road, Makrana. Since the demand itself has been quashed by this Court, therefore, if any attachment order has been issued by the respondents, they are directed to withdraw the same forthwith. The writ petition is allowed as stated above.;