₹308 Cr Tax Demand Stayed as Import Addition Breached Natural Justice: Bombay HC

Savli Copper Products Private Limited Vs ITO (Bombay High Court)

Summary: Stay of high-pitched tax demand granted where the addition for alleged unexplained import expenditure was prima facie vitiated by breach of natural justice due to non-furnishing of invoice-wise and bill-of-entry-wise data; the requirement of 20% deposit under administrative instructions was held not to fetter the Court’s power to grant stay.

Core Issue

Whether recovery of a demand of Rs. 308,30,37,290/- arising from an addition of Rs. 290,61,87,535/- under section 69C towards alleged unexplained import expenditure should be stayed during pendency of the first appeal where the assessee had repeatedly sought invoice-wise and bill-of-entry-wise import data but the Assessing Officer furnished only consolidated figures, and whether the Revenue could insist upon payment of 20% of the demand pursuant to administrative Office Memoranda as a precondition for stay.

Facts

The assessee, a private limited company engaged in trading and manufacturing copper products, filed its return for AY 2023-24 declaring total income of Rs. 7,06,27,395/-. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer questioned the assessee regarding import transactions allegedly amounting to Rs. 1,796.24 crore and subsequently revised the figure to Rs. 1,476.04 crore on the basis of information available with the Department. The assessee repeatedly requested invoice-wise and bill-of-entry-wise details so that the alleged discrepancy could be reconciled. The information supplied by the AO, however, contained consolidated monthly figures and the assessee pointed out that certain entries appeared to be repeated.

The assessee explained that its actual imports recorded in the books for the year amounted to Rs. 1,613.69 crore, comprising imports of raw materials of Rs. 428.27 crore and copper wire of Rs. 1,185.42 crore. It therefore contended that the imports recorded in its books actually exceeded the aggregate import data of Rs. 1,476.04 crore relied upon by the AO. The assessee nevertheless furnished complete details of its imports, including invoice numbers and corresponding bill-of-entry numbers, aggregating to Rs. 1,613.69 crore.

AO Finding

The Assessing Officer rejected the assessee’s explanation and, by assessment order dated 27 March 2026, treated the difference of Rs. 290,61,87,535/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69C. The AO relied upon third-party import data allegedly derived from statutory customs records and held that the assessee had failed to reconcile the difference. Consequently, the total income was assessed at Rs. 297,68,14,930/- and a demand of Rs. 308,30,37,290/- was raised under section 156.

Stay Proceedings

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) on 24 April 2026 and simultaneously sought stay of the demand. It also approached the high-pitched assessment committee. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Revenue rejected the assessee’s stay application and directed it to pay 20% of the outstanding demand, i.e. approximately Rs. 61.66 crore, stating that mere pendency of the appeal did not absolve the assessee from the requirement of payment and that sufficient opportunities had been granted during assessment proceedings.

The assessee contended that payment of 20% would cause serious financial hardship because its share capital and reserves were approximately Rs. 36.81 crore as on 31 March 2025. It also submitted that the assessment was extremely high-pitched, being around 42 times the returned income, and that there was a strong prima facie case arising from the manner in which the import data had been supplied and relied upon.

High Court Finding – Natural Justice

The High Court examined the notices dated 5 January 2026 and 11 March 2026 and found that the information furnished by the AO did not contain meaningful invoice-wise or bill-of-entry-wise details. The Court noted that, despite repeated requests, the assessee had not been provided the detailed break-up necessary to reconcile the alleged difference. More significantly, the information supplied by the Department itself appeared to contain repetitions in certain months.

The Court also noted that the assessee’s books recorded imports of Rs. 1,613.69 crore, which was substantially higher than the aggregate figure of Rs. 1,476.04 crore relied upon by the AO. In these circumstances, the Court found considerable force in the assessee’s contention that it was impossible to reconcile the alleged discrepancy without complete underlying data and held that there had been a breach of the principles of natural justice.

High Court Finding – Stay of Demand

The Court relied upon the principles laid down in UTI Mutual Fund v. ITO and KEC International Ltd. v. B.R. Balakrishnan, as subsequently considered in BHIL Employees Welfare Fund No. 4 v. ITO, that while considering an application for stay, the authority must balance the interests of the Revenue with the hardship to the assessee. Financial hardship is not the only consideration; the existence of a strong prima facie case and serious triable issues is also relevant.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the impugned demand arose from an addition which was prima facie made in violation of natural justice. The high-pitched nature of the assessment and the serious issues concerning the underlying import data also warranted protection against recovery during the pendency of the appeal.

20% Deposit Requirement

The Revenue contended that the assessee was required to pay 20% of the outstanding demand in accordance with the Office Memoranda dated 29 February 2016 and 31 July 2017. The High Court rejected this contention. Relying upon CCE v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries and the Supreme Court proceedings in PCIT v. LG Electronics India (P) Ltd., the Court held that administrative circulars cannot bind or curtail the Court’s power to grant an appropriate stay. The Court also noted that the Revenue itself had accepted before the Supreme Court that the relevant Office Memoranda did not operate as a fetter and that the authorities could grant a stay on deposit of an amount lower than 20%.

Cases Relied Upon

The Court considered CCE v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, 2008 (10) TMI 5 (SC) on the binding nature of administrative circulars, PCIT v. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., 2018 (7) TMI 1905 (SC) concerning the 20% deposit guidelines, JSW Minerals Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. Assessment Unit, 2026 (1) TMI 1046 (Bombay High Court) concerning natural justice in assessment based on undisclosed import data, and Humuza Consultants, BHIL Employees Welfare Fund No. 4, UTI Mutual Fund and KEC International Ltd. concerning stay of demand and the principles governing recovery during pendency of appeal.

Outcome

The Bombay High Court stayed the recovery of the demand of Rs. 308,30,37,290/- under section 156 during the pendency of the assessee’s first appeal. The Court specifically rejected the Revenue’s insistence that the assessee must necessarily deposit 20% of the outstanding demand. The appellate authority was requested to dispose of the appeal within 16 weeks from the date the order was brought to its attention.

The Court clarified that all observations regarding the assessment were prima facie in nature and that the appellate authority was required to decide the pending appeal independently on merits and in accordance with law. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.

Cases Discussed

• JSW Mineral Trading (P) Ltd. V/S Assessment Unit [(2026) 183 taxmann.com 28 (Bombay)] – Relied upon on breach of natural justice where complete underlying import data was not furnished for reconciliation.
• Humuza Consultants V/S ACIT [(2022) 145 taxmann.com 495 (Bombay)] – Relied upon in relation to stay of high-pitched tax demand.
• BHIL Employees Welfare Fund No. 4 V/S ITO [(2023) 147 taxmann.com 427 (Bombay)] – Considered on parameters governing stay, prima facie case and hardship.
• UTI Mutual Fund Vs Income Tax Officer (Bombay High Court) – Considered on the principles governing stay and recovery of disputed tax demand.
• CCE V/S Ratan Melting & Wire Industries [(2008) 13 SCC 1] – Relied upon on the effect of administrative circulars.
• PCIT V/S LG Electronics India (P) Ltd. – Considered on the principle that the 20% deposit guideline does not operate as a fetter and a lower deposit may be ordered.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. This Writ Petition challenges the recoverability of a demand of Rs. 308,30,37,290/- raised under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) pursuant to an Order of Assessment dated 27th March 2026 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2023-24.

3. The brief facts of the case reveal that the Petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of trading and manufacture of copper products. For A.Y. 2023-24, the Petitioner filed a Return of Income declaring a total income of Rs. 7,06,27,395/-.

4. On 26th August 2025, Respondent No. 1 issued a Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act stating that he had information that the Petitioner had imported material amounting to Rs. 1796,24,49,546/- which was not in line with its financial statements, and sought an explanation from the Petitioner in this regard. The Petitioner, on 9th September 2025, responded to the said query, forwarding a copy of its purchase register and requesting Respondent No. 1 to provide an invoice wise and bill of entry wise summary to enable it to furnish a detailed reconciliation.

5. On 5th January 2026, Respondent No. 1 issued another Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act revising the import numbers [on which clarification was sought] to Rs. 1476,04,04,909/- and in this regard provided the Petitioner with information under the following heads –

(a) the transaction month,

(b) the number of bills of entry in the relevant month,

(c) consolidated invoice values for multiple bills of entry and

(d) consolidated duty paid for multiple bills of entry.

In response, the Petitioner by letter dated 12th January 2026 once again requested Respondent No. 1 to provide an invoice wise and bill of entry wise break up to enable it to furnish a detailed reconciliation.

6. On 11th March 2026, Respondent No. 1 issued yet another Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act stating that the information available with him disclosed that the Petitioner had imported an aggregate invoice value of Rs. 1476,04,04,909/- during the Financial Year 2022-23, as reflected in the import data based on bills of entry filed before the customs authorities, and that he was furnishing the information desired by the Petitioner. In response, the Petitioner by its letter dated 18th March 2026 explained that the total imports during the year were Rs. 1613,69,55,121/- made up of import of raw materials of Rs. 428,27,37,747/- and import of copper wire of Rs. 1185,42,17,374/- and that Respondent No. 1 was erroneously comparing only the imports of copper wire of Rs. 1185,42,17,374/- with the aggregate import figure of Rs. 1476,04,04,909/- available with him, and was therefore incorrectly questioning the balance of Rs. 290,61,87,535/-. The Petitioner highlighted that the total imports during the year (viz. Rs. 1613,69,55,121/-) far exceeded the information available with Respondent No. 1 and therefore all imports were duly recorded in the books and there was no inconsistency. The Petitioner denied that the information sought (viz. invoice wise and bill of entry wise break up) was provided and stated that what was provided merely gave the very same information shared in the Notice dated 5th January 2026 albeit in a different tabular format. In any case, and to dispel all doubts, the Petitioner filed with Respondent No. 1 complete details of all bills of entry and corresponding invoices relating to the entire imports made during the year aggregating to Rs. 1613,69,55,121/-.

7. On 27th March 2026, Respondent No. 1 passed an order under Section 143(3) rejecting the submissions of the Petitioner and making a singular addition of Rs. 290,61,87,535/- as unexplained expenditure. Respondent No. 1 based the addition on a finding that he was in possession of reliable, third-party information (viz. import data derived from statutory customs records), indicating a higher value of transactions, and that the Petitioner had failed to reconcile or explain such discrepancy with cogent evidence, and therefore the difference was liable to be treated as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Act. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1 computed the total income of the Petitioner at Rs. 297,68,14,930/- and raised a demand of Rs. 308,30,37,290/-.

8. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 24th April 2026. Simultaneously, the Petitioner filed an application with Respondent No. 1 seeking a stay against recovery of the said demand of Rs. 308,30,37,290/- and also approached the high-pitched committee by its application dated 24th April 2026. On 9th July 2026, Respondent No. 1 issued a Notice to the Petitioner, inter alia, calling upon it to make payment of the demand due for A.Y. 2023-24, which was responded to by the Petitioner highlighting the pendency of its application for stay and reiterating its contentions as set out therein.

9. On 20th July 2026, Respondent No. 3 issued a Notice for hearing of the Appeal for A.Y. 2023-24, calling upon the Petitioner to file its submissions. The Petitioner by its letter dated 27th July 2026 filed detailed submissions, inter alia, highlighting the discrepancy in the approach of Respondent No. 1.

10. Given that there was no response from Respondent No. 1 or the high-pitched committee, and fearing coercive action, the Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition seeking directions against recovery of the said demand of Rs. 308,30,37,290/- as also for directions to expedite the disposal of its Appeal pending before Respondent No. 3.

11. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, on 4th September 2026, the Petitioner was served with a communication dated 3rd September 2026 rejecting the Petitioner’s application for stay (dated 24th April 2026), on the ground that the mere pendency of an appeal before Respondent No. 3 would not absolve the Petitioner of the requirement to pay 20%, that documentary evidence of financial hardship had not been furnished, and that sufficient opportunity had been given to the Petitioner for submitting a reconciliation during the course of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the Petitioner was directed to pay 20% of the said demand by 10th September 2026 and thereafter reapply for stay of the demand. A copy of this order was handed over by the Petitioner during the course of the hearing, which is taken on record and marked “X” for identification.

12. In this factual backdrop, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the addition of Rs. 290,61,87,535/- as unexplained expenditure is ex facie arbitrary and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Despite repeated requests, Respondent No. 1 has failed to furnish invoice wise breakup and bills of entry wise breakup to enable the Petitioner to submit a reconciliation. He submitted that it was impossible for the Petitioner to reconcile and/or explain the alleged difference, unless the breakup was furnished. He highlighted that it was apparent on the face of the information provided that there was duplication. He pointed out that for the month of April 2022 there were in all six line-items, of which the last three were a repetition of the first three. He also pointed out that insofar as the month of June 2022 is concerned there were in all three line-items and all three of them were identical to the three line-items for the month of May 2022. He submitted that owing to these glaring inconsistencies, the Petitioner was left with no option but to file complete details of all imports made during the year along with invoice numbers and bill of entry numbers with Respondent No. 1 and to request him to verify the same with the information available with him. He submitted that not even a single specific error was pointed out by Respondent No. 1 before rejecting the submissions of the Petitioner and making an addition of a staggering amount of Rs. 290,61,87,535/-. In this regard the learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of JSW Mineral Trading (P) Ltd. V/S Assessment Unit [(2026) 183 taxmann.com 28 (Bombay)]. He therefore submitted that the Petitioner has made out a strong prima facie case against the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

13. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the assessment framed is exceedingly high pitched, 42 times the returned income, and therefore in view of Instruction No.96 dated 21st August 1969 read with Instruction No. 1914 dated 2nd February 1993, such a demand deserves to be stayed until the disposal of the first appeal pending before Respondent No. 3. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Humuza Consultants V/S ACIT [(2022) 145 taxmann.com 495 (Bombay)] [being an interim order] and thereafter confirmed vide order dated 17th March 2023 which finally disposed of the Writ Petition, and the decision in BHIL Employees Welfare Fund No. 4 V/S ITO [(2023) 147 taxmann.com 427 (Bombay)].

14. The learned counsel further submitted that if the Petitioner is made to pay 20% of the impugned demand (Rs. 61,66,07,458/-), the number will far exceed the share capital and reserves (Rs. 36.81 Crores as on 31st March 2025), turning the Petitioner into a negative net worth company causing it serious financial hardship. For all the aforesaid reasons it was submitted that during the pendency of the Appeal the recovery of the impugned demand be stayed.

15. On the other hand, Mr. Vipul Bajpayee, the learned counsel for the Respondents, relied on paragraph 7 of the affidavit in reply on behalf of the Respondents dated 16 September 2026, which reads as under:-

“7. I say that Para 12 to 15 of the Petition pertains to notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 11.03.2026 and response made by the Petitioner company vide dated 18.03.2026 during Assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2023-24. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing officer has made an addition of unexplained difference in import purchases of Rs. 2,90,61,87,535 which was the difference between the purchases reported in trading profit and loss account and information available on the insight portal as unexplained expenditure and creates a demand of Rs. 308,30,37,290/-. In this regard it is stated that during the assessment proceedings the proper opportunities have been given to the Petitioner and the Petitioner has failed to prove the correct income which he earns during the year. These are the brief facts leading to the present petition; therefore, no comments are offered.”

16. Mr. Bajpayee submitted that despite repeated opportunities being provided to the Petitioner it failed to offer a reconciliation. Hence, the addition made was in accordance with law and that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. He, therefore, submitted that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

17. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record. On reading the Notices dated 5th January 2026 and 11th March 2026 it is apparent that the information furnished by the Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, is bereft of any meaningful details. For example for the month of April 2022, in the Notice dated 5th January 2026, Respondent No. 1 has provided the following information:-

Similar information in a similar format has been provided for May 2022 to March 2023, aggregating to Rs. 1476,04,04,909/-. In the notice dated 11th March 2026, again, Respondent No. 1 has not provided any information in addition to that disclosed in his Notice dated 5th January 2026, save and except presenting it in a different format. We find that the Petitioner has repeatedly, by its letters dated 9th September 2025, 12th January 2026 and 18th March 2026, requested Respondent No. 1 to provide invoice wise and bill of entry wise details to enable it to submit a reconciliation. We find that the Petitioner in its letter dated 18th March 2026 has provided Respondent No. 1 with details of imports made by it during the year, giving invoice numbers and corresponding bills of entry numbers, aggregating to Rs. 1613,69,55,121/- as reflected in its accounts.

In the absence of complete details of the breakup being furnished to the Petitioner, we find that it is impossible for the Petitioner to have reconciled/explained the alleged difference between the figures of imports as per its ITR/accounts and the information furnished by Respondent No. 1. This is more so when it has been shown by the Petitioner that the information furnished by Respondent No. 1 also suffers from some apparent repetition.

18. We also find it strange that Respondent No. 1 should have based the addition of Rs. 290,61,87,535/- on a finding that he was in possession of information indicating a higher value of imports as compared to the imports claimed by the Petitioner, and since the Petitioner had failed to reconcile or explain such a discrepancy, the difference was liable to be treated as unexplained expenditure, when in fact the Petitioner had recorded imports of Rs. 1613,69,55,121/- which far exceeded the aggregate value of the information available with Respondent No. 1, i.e. Rs. 1476,04,04,909/-.

19. We, therefore, find considerable force in the arguments canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner that there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice.

20. The Petitioner is right in placing reliance on the decision of this Court in JSW Mineral Trading (P) Ltd. (supra). In almost identical circumstances, this Court, while quashing the assessment, observed as under :

“18. Having heard the parties, we are of the view that we need not go into all the grounds and rival contentions urged before us. This Petition may be disposed off on the short ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. In the notice dated 18th November 2021, Respondent No. 1 required the Petitioner to reconcile the stated difference between purchases shown by the Petitioner in its return of Rs 1218,03,15,231, and “.data with us… Rs.1520,29,89,300^”. Other than this aggregate figure, no details were set out in the notice. The Petitioner’s reply dated 30th November 2021, though scanty, notes that no discrepancy appeared from it’s books and requested Respondent No. 1 to provide more clarity and guidance so as to answer the query. Thereafter it was only on 20th June 2023 that Respondent No. 1 required the responses of the Petitioner to be re-filed. On 6th September 2023, Respondent No. 1 issued a show cause notice which yet again set out the aggregate figures of imports, and without any details whatsoever, stated the difference of Rs. 302,26,74,069/- remained unverified, and required the Petitioner to show cause why the same should not be treated as unexplained money as per Section 69A of the Act. Reply to the show cause notice was sought by 11:42 hours on 11th September 2023. On the Petitioner’s request, an adjournment was granted upto 14th September 2023. On this date the Petitioner replied to the best of it’s ability, given that no details of the data used by Respondent No. 1 was provided. All these facts narrated hereinabove are undisputed.

19. On examining these undisputed facts, apart from the question of whether sufficient time was allowed to the Petitioner, we are of the view that it is impossible for the Petitioner to reconcile and/or explain the alleged difference between the figures of imports as per the ITR/accounts of the Petitioner, and the data of the CBEC, in the absence of complete details of the break up of the CBEC data being furnished to the Petitioner. Further, a plain reading of the impugned order clearly indicates that Respondent No. 1 has proceeded to make an addition without providing or even referring to the breakup or details of the difference in the alleged purchase value of imports of the assessee/Petitioner. It is also relevant to consider the fact that in transfer pricing proceedings these very purchases were scrutinised and held to be at arm’s length price. We, therefore, find considerable force in the arguments canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice, and on this count alone, the entire addition made and the assessment proceedings are vitiated. We also say this because Respondent No. 1 simply relied upon the information provided by the CBEC on the assumption that the figure mentioned by the CBEC was the actual figure of imports required to shown by the Petitioner in it’s ITR, notwithstanding that it had not disclosed the details of any import bills and that no breakup value of the import purchases was given, and further by not even providing the information as was received from the CBEC to the Petitioner, before passing the assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act.”

21. While considering the effect of such a high-pitched assessment based on a singular addition made in violation of the principles of natural justice, on the recoverability of the impugned demand, it would be appropriate to keep in mind the following observations of this Court in BHIL Employees Welfare Fund No. 4 (supra) :-

“30. Apropos the judgement in the case of UTI Mutual Fund (supra) wherein it followed the judgment of the division bench of this court in KEC International Ltd. (supra) laying down the parameters for disposing of the application for stay, more particularly, the parameter that:

“In exercising the powers of stay, the Income-tax Officer should not act as a mere tax gatherer but as a quasi-judicial authority vested with the public duty of protecting the interest of the Revenue while at the same time balancing the need to mitigate hardship to the assessee. Though the assessing officer has made an assessment, he must objectively decide the application for stay considering that an appeal lies against his order : the matter must be considered from all its facets, balancing the interest of the assessee with the protection of the Revenue.”

We are of the opinion that these parameters have not been considered by the respondents in true letter and spirit as is evident from the orders passed that are based on the Petitioner’s status as a Firm instead of as a Trust.

31. Apropos the judgment in the case of UTI Mutual Fund (supra) wherein this Court held that in considering whether a stay of demand granted, the Court is duty bound to consider not merely the issue of financial hardship if any, but also whether a strong prima facie case is made out and serious triable issues are raised that would warrant a dispensation of deposit. It was further held that calling upon Petitioner to deposit, would itself occasion undue hardship where a strong prima facie case has been made out. We are of the opinion that the respondents have failed to consider the ratio of the judgment in its true letter and spirit inasmuch as respondents called upon the Petitioner to deposit 10% of the demand when the Petitioner had a strong prima facie case. In our view, the deposit would itself occasion undue hardship to the Petitioner who are Trust created for the purpose of benefiting the employees.”

22. When we apply the above principles, reiterated time and again, to the facts of the present case, we agree that the impugned demand (based on an addition made in violation of the principles of natural justice) ought to be stayed.

23. Insofar as the Revenue’s contention [in the affidavit-in-reply] that in view the Office Memorandum dated 29th February 2016 read with the Office Memorandum dated 31st July 2017 the Petitioner ought to pay 20% of the outstanding demand is concerned, such a submission must be stated only to be rejected. It is settled law that administrative circulars do not bind and cannot restrict/curtail our powers (see CCE V/S Ratan Melting & Wire Industries [(2008) 13 SCC 1]). This is more so when the Revenue has itself accepted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT V/S LG Electronics India (P) Ltd. [(96) taxmann.com 656], that the aforementioned Office Memorandum will not operate as a fetter on them and that it is open to the authorities to grant deposit orders of an amount lesser than 20%, pending the Appeal.

24. We, therefore, direct that the demand of Rs. 308,30,37,290/- raised under Section 156 of the Act pursuant to the order of assessment dated 27th March 2026 (Exhibit L) is stayed during the pendency of appeal before Respondent No. 3.

25. We further note that the Respondents, in paragraph 13 of their affidavit in reply, have themselves agreed to expedite the hearing of the pending Appeal before Respondent No. 3. We accordingly request Respondent No. 3 to hear and dispose of the Appeal filed by the Petitioner on 24th April 2026 [under Acknowledgment Number-760959590240426 (Exhibit M)] within 16 weeks from the date of this order being brought to the attention of Respondent No. 3. Since Respondent No. 3 is the National Faceless Appeal Centre, the Petitioner shall forward a copy of this order to its Jurisdictional Assessing Officer who shall then bring this order to the attention of Respondent No. 3.

26. We hasten to add that all observations made by us in this order are only prima facie in nature, and the Appellate Authority shall decide the Appeal filed by the Petitioner on its own merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made by us herein.

27. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

28. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.