Sandeep Kumar Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court)
Summary: The Rajasthan High Court set aside an order dated 7 July 2026 rejecting an assessee’s application for stay of income tax recovery during the pendency of his statutory appeal. The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar, contended that he had lost his employment and lacked the financial means to deposit Rs. 4,52,278, representing 20% of the outstanding tax demand. He argued that the appellate authority had rejected his stay application without considering the financial hardship caused by the pre-deposit requirement. The Revenue supported the impugned order.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain observed that the appellate authority had rejected the application solely because the petitioner had not deposited 20% of the demand, without examining his plea of financial hardship. Finding this omission material, the High Court set aside the rejection order and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh stay application explaining his financial difficulties, supported by an affidavit and relevant documents. The appellate authority was directed to decide the application in accordance with law within 30 days of its filing and to consider the stay request before proceeding further with recovery. The Court did not itself grant a stay or waive the deposit; it required reconsideration of the application after examining the petitioner’s hardship.
Appellant Was Petitioner By : Mr. Tarak Ahuja
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 07.07.2026, by which the petitioner’s application for stay during the pendency of his statutory appeal has been rejected by the Appellate Authority finding no merit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question of hardship has not been considered as he had lost his job and he has no means to pay Rs.4,52,278/-, which is pre-deposit of 20% of the demand, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3. Mr. Sandeep Pathak, learned counsel for the Revenue, on advance copy, would support the impugned order.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and gone through the relevant record of the case, including the impugned order.
5. A careful perusal of the impugned order show that straightaway petitioner’s application has been rejected by the Appellate Authority holding that 20% pre-deposit of the demand has not been deposited and the question of hardships raised by the petitioner has not been considered, therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority. The petitioner will file a fresh application highlighting his hardships of depositing 20% amount of the demand along with the affidavit and other documents, which will be considered, afresh, in accordance with law within next 30 days from the date of filing of the application. Before proceeding further for the recovery, the application for grant of stay will be considered.
6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
