JAGDISH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ORS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the ends of justice would be met by directing the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-Raj-III, Jaipur to decide the pending stay applications or the main appeals at the earliest. The Court disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the main appeals within two months from the date of production of the order. If deciding the main appeals is not immediately possible, the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to immediately decide the stay applications within a fortnight. Until the stay applications are decided, the interim orders passed by the High Court in these writ petitions were to remain operative. The stay applications filed before the High Court were also disposed of.
What were the facts?
The petitioners, Jagdish, Smt. Narangi Devi, and Smt. Jamna Devi, are assessees who filed writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court. The primary petitioner, Jagdish, filed his income tax return for assessment year 2008-09 in response to a notice under Section 148, declaring agricultural income. The Assessing Officer assessed his total income at Rs. 18,15,460/- and agricultural income at Rs. 1,30,000/-. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-III, Jaipur, along with a stay application. Despite the pending stay application, the petitioner received demand notices and a notice threatening arrest and attachment. Similar situations arose for Smt. Narangi Devi and Smt. Jamna Devi, leading them to file their respective writ petitions.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the respondents can take coercive action for recovery of demand when the appeals and stay applications filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) are pending? Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that the respondents should be restrained from taking any coercive action until their appeals against the assessment orders are decided, especially since their stay applications are not being heard by the appellate authority. They relied on the decision in Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singh Vs. ITAT, 223 ITR Page 192. Revenue's Contention: The respondents opposed the writ petitions, alleging that the petitioners had not approached the court with clean hands and had concealed the fact that their stay applications had already been dismissed by the concerned Assessing Authority. However, they did not oppose the submission regarding the decision of stay applications if they were not already decided by the appellate authority.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4407/2015 & OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER (1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4407/2015 WITH S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. 3954/2015 JAGDISH VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-RAJ-III, JAIPUR & OTHERS. WITH (2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4409/2015 WITH S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. 3956/2015 JAGDISH VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-RAJ-III, JAIPUR & OTHERS. WITH (3) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4410/2015 WITH S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. 3957/2015 JAGDISH VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-RAJ-III, JAIPUR & OTHERS. WITH (4) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4312/2015 WITH S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. 3868/2015 SMT. NARANGI DEVI VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-RAJ-III, JAIPUR & OTHERS. WITH (5) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4313/2015 WITH S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. 3869/2015 SMT. NARANGI DEVI VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-RAJ-III, JAIPUR & OTHERS.
2 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4407/2015 & OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS WITH (6) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4318/2015 WITH S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. 3873/2015 SMT. JAMNA DEVI VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-RAJ-III, JAIPUR & OTHERS. WITH (7) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4319/2015 WITH S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. 3874/2015 SMT. JAMNA DEVI VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-RAJ-III, JAIPUR & OTHERS. DATE OF ORDER : 30.04.2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. P.K. Kasliwal, for the petitioners. Mr. Sameer Jain with Ms. Mahi Yadav, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: Since all these writ petitions raise similar questions of facts and law, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4407/2015 are taken as the basis. Petitioner-assessee, Jagdish is an individual residing at Gram Goner, Tehsil, Sanganer Jaipur and having agriculture income. He filed his income tax return on 23.01.2014 in response to notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(for short 'the Act') issued by the respondents, declaring an agriculture income of Rs. 1,30,000/- for the assessment year 2008-09. The petitioner also
3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4407/2015 & OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS filed objections to the aforesaid notice. The Assessing Officer disposed of the objections vide order dated 13.02.2014 and assessed the income of the petitioner-assessee at Rs. 18,15,460/- and agricultural income at Rs. 1,30,000/- vide order dated 24.02.2014. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals)-III, Jaipur on 11.04.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner received demand notice dated 18.11.2014 for recovery of aforesaid demand. The petitioner in response to the said notice filed stay application for staying the demand. The petitioner received further notice dated 26.12.2014 for disposal of stay application and the same was duly complied with, but stay application has not been decided and is still pending. Thereafter, the petitioner received another notice dated 13.02.2015 issued by Tax Recovery Officer-III, Jaipur for payment of the demand. The petitioner in response to the same, filed stay application before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-III, Jaipur on 02.02.2015 and the same is still pending. The petitioner received a notice dated 16.02.2015 with threat of arrest and attachment without considering the fact that stay application filed by the petitioner is still pending. Hence, the petitioner, apprehending action for enforcement of the demand by the respondents, has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition. In other writ petitions filed by petitioners-assessees, Smt. Narangi Devi and Smt. Jamna Devi, similar types of notices have been issued for recovery of demands created in their respective cases and the appeals and stay applications filed by them before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-Raj-III, Jaipur. Therefore, they have also filed presents writ petitions.
4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4407/2015 & OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that limited prayer of the petitioners is that the respondents may not take any coercive action against the petitioners till the appeals filed by the petitioners against the assessment orders are pending, particularly when stay applications filed along with the appeals are not being taken up for hearing by the appellate authority. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decision rendered by this Court in Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singh Vs. ITAT, 223 ITR Page 192. It is, therefore, prayed that the Commissioner (Appeals)-III, Jaipur may be directed to decide the stay applications or the appeals filed by the petitioners at the earliest. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petitions and submitted that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and they have concealed the fact that their stay applications have already been dismissed by the concerned Assessing Authority. However, he has not opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to decisions of stay applications, if not already decided filed with the appeals, by the appellate authority. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would meet if the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-Raj-III, Jaipur is directed to decide the stay applications or the appeals filed by the petitioners at the earliest. In view of above, these writ petitions are disposed of with direction to the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-Raj-III, Jaipur to at least decide the main appeals itself at the earliest and if that is
5 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4407/2015 & OTHER CONNECTED MATTERS not possible, immediately decide stay applications filed by the petitioners in their appeals within a period of fortnight from the date of production of copy of this order before it. The appeals filed by the petitioners should in any case be decided within a period of two months from the date copy of this order is produced before it. However, till decision of stay applications by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-Raj-III, Jaipur, interim orders passed by this Court in all these writ petitions shall remain operative. Stay applications also stand disposed of. Office is directed to place a copy of this order on record of each connected writ petitions.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. Manoj, S.NO.90-92 & C1 -4. “All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” MANOJ NARWANI Personal Assistant.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026