VISHNU OIL MILL PVT. LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Petitioner herein seeks modification of the order dated 10.03.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Jaipur, whereby the stay petition filed by it against recovery of high-pitched tax demands for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2018-19 was disposed of, allegedly, in a mechanical manner, by directing payment of 20% of the disputed demand.

The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of oil, chana dal, besan, churi, various kinds of pulses, and (Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:28:04 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:44:25 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:22841-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-4269/2023] general kirana items. On 21.02.2018, a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the petitioner's business premises. Based on the findings recorded during the survey, the assessment for A.Y. 2013-14 was reopened by notice dated 30.03.2021 issued under Section 148, and the assessment for A.Y. 2018-19 was taken up for scrutiny by notice dated 30.09.2019 under Section 143(2).

Both proceedings culminated in assessment orders dated 25.09.2021 and 28.02.2022 respectively, the latter being a best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Act. Consequently, the petitioner was saddled with a high-pitched tax demand, inclusive of penalty, exceeding ₹2.75 crores. Since the appellate authority does not have the power to grant stay on recovery, the petitioner filed a stay petition before Respondent No. 1 – PCIT, Jaipur on 15.09.2022, followed by detailed written submissions dated 02.02.2023, in accordance with the Office Memorandums dated 29.02.2016 and 31.07.2017. However, Respondent No. 1 disposed of the stay petition vide order dated 10.03.2023 in a wholly mechanical manner, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the disputed demand pending disposal of the first appeal, without any meaningful consideration of the merits. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.

Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the material on record.

Mr. K.K. Bissa, learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, submits that the appeal against the assessment order dated 25.09.2021 for A.Y. 2018-19, in respect of which stay was sought, has already been dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 16.08.2024, and that a further appeal against the said order is now pending before the ITAT.

In the premise, since the ITAT, while hearing an appeal, has the power to grant or decline stay of any nature, including passing such orders as may be necessary as a precondition for granting stay, including granting exemption from the requirement of pre-deposit, in relation to the proceedings under challenge and/or the effect of the orders impugned before it, we are, therefore, not inclined to interfere in the matter.

It transpires that the writ petition was filed before this Court in the year 2023 and has remained pending since then without any interim order having been passed, while the proceedings before the ITAT have also not progressed further.

In the aforesaid circumstances, given that petition is confined to the limited issue of stay of the assessment order, which is now before the ITAT, the same is disposed of with the expectation that the ITAT shall take up the matter in due course and pass appropriate orders, including on the prayer for stay pending before it.

Insofar as the appeal against the assessment order dated 28.02.2022 pending before the CIT(A) is concerned, it is expected that the same shall be taken up and decided in due course, in accordance with law.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

The stay application also stands disposed of. (SANDEEP SHAH),J (ARUN MONGA),J 43-Love/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:28:04 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:44:25 AM)