Rakesh Saraogi vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax appeals
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition. It directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the pending appeal of the petitioner within a further period of four weeks. The Court further observed that until the appeal is decided, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner for the recovery of the disputed demand, keeping the demand notice in abeyance. The reasoning was based on the submissions of both parties, particularly the revenue's assurance not to take coercive steps and the petitioner's pending appeal. The principle established is that in such circumstances, the appellate authority should expedite the decision of the appeal, and coercive recovery should be deferred.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Rakesh Saraogi, is aggrieved by an assessment order dated March 27, 2016, for assessment year 2013-14, which imposed a demand of Rs. 43,81,550/-. The petitioner contends that this assessment is excessively high. An appeal has been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the first respondent. The petitioner apprehends coercive recovery steps, such as attachment of property and bank accounts, if the demand is not stayed pending the appeal. The petitioner relies on departmental instructions and High Court decisions for the proposition that recovery should normally be stayed in cases of harsh assessment where an appeal is preferred.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) should direct the stay of recovery of a disputed demand pending the disposal of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), particularly when the assessment is considered 'harsh' by the assessee? Assessee's arguments: The assessment is unreasonably high-pitched. Recovery should be stayed as an appeal has been preferred. The respondents should follow their own instructions (Instruction No. 96) which mandate staying recovery in cases of harsh assessment if an appeal is filed. Reliance was placed on Delhi High Court in Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT, Rajasthan High Court in His Late Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji Of Mewar vs. ITAT, and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Northern Coalfields Ltd. v. CIT and Municipal Corporation, Satna vs. Union of India. A similar order was passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in W.P.(T) 72 of 2015. Revenue's arguments: The revenue, through its counsel, submitted that the petition may be disposed of as the petitioner has already filed an appeal. They further stated that no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner during the pendency of the appeal, and the appeal would be decided within four weeks.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page 1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P.(T). No. 66 of 2016
Rakesh Saraogi, S/o. Shri Satya Narayan Saraogi, aged about 52 years, Subhash Road, Ganjpara, Raipur, R/o. Anandam World City, Kachna Main Road, Near G.A.D, Colony Raipur (C.G.) ----Petitioner Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer-I (1) Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. Romir Sumit Goyal, Advocate For Respondents : Mrs. Nausina Afrin Ali, Advocate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 10/05/2016
The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand made of Rs.43,81,550/- (Annexure P/1) in the assessment order dated 27.03.2016, for assessment year 2013-14. According to the petitioner, an un- reasonable high pitched assessment has been made by the assessing officer i.e. the respondent No.2 herein.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the assessment order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1 vide Annexure P-3 and if the effect and operation of the demand notice is not stayed, the respondent No.2 shall take coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of disputed demand by attachment of the property and the bank accounts. It is contended that since the Page 2 appeal has been preferred against such assessment order, the respondents may be directed to follow their own instructions No.96, which directs that in case of harsh assessment, if appeal is preferred, then in such case, the recovery should be normally stayed. The counsel submits that in the instant case, assessment has been made to the extent of Rs.43,81,550/-, which will certainly fall within the ambit of harsh assessment. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of Delhi High Court in the matter of Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & others reported in (2010) 324 ITR 247, decision of Rajasthan High Court in the matter of His Late Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji Of Mewar vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & others reported in (1997) 223 ITR 192 (Raj), decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Northern Coalfields Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and others reported in (2015) 25 ITJ 492 (MP) and the order dated 30.09.2014 passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.14939/2014 (Municipal submit that in the similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in W.P.(T) 72 of 2015 has passed the similar like nature of the order, therefore, the recovery be stayed since the appeal is pending.
Counsel for the respondents on instructions submits that instead of keeping this petition pending it may be disposed of as the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1 and that during the pendency of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner and the appeal would be decided within four weeks.
Page 3
Considering the submission made by the parties, present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the pending appeal of the petitioner within further period of four weeks. It is further observed that till the decision on the said appeal, respondents shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner for recovery of disputed demand keeping the demand notice in abeyance.
In view of above, the petition is disposed of. (Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE Balram
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
