Cholorochem Industries, E-57, Indraprasth Industrial Area,Ladpura, Kota v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle,Kota

[2025:RJ-JP:6867-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3099/2022 Cholorochem Industries, E-57, Indraprasth Industrial Area,Ladpura, Kota 325005 Through Its Partner Shri Ajay Mittal ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle,Kota Having Its Office At Central Revenue Building, RawatBhata Road, KotaKota Having Its Office At Central Revenue Building, RawatBhata Road, Kota 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central, JaipurHaving Its Office At Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, JeevanNidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, JaipurHaving Its Office At Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, JeevanNidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Having Its Address AtNorth Block, New Delhi Through Its ChairmanNorth Block, New Delhi Through Its Chairman ----Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR 17/02/2025 Order 1.This petition is filed raising a grievance against the directionsto deposit 20% of the demand created during pendency of theappeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (A). 2. The bird eye view of the facts are that a survey wasconducted at the premises of the petitioner on 11.01.2018. Thestatement recorded during survey was reiterated on 25.01.2018.The proceedings culminated in assessment order dated30.06.2021 creating a demand of Rs.2,18,05,696/-. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submitsthat petitioner has already deposited Rs.10 Lakh and shall depositRs.10 Lakh more within four weeks and the appellate authority bedirected to dispose of the appeal expeditiously since the appeal ispending since 2021. It is further argued that the assessment wasframed solely relying upon the statement which was reiterated.The contention is that assessment is without jurisdiction and isviolative of Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as therecorded statement is not statement on oath. 4.Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugnedorder and submits that the petitioner was given a benefit ofinstallment for depositing 20% of demand. 5.Without commenting upon the merits of the case and takinginto consideration the issue involved and that the appeal ispending since 2021, this petition is disposed of with direction thatin the eventuality of petitioner depositing Rs.10 Lakh within fourweeks from today, the CIT shall decide the appeal on merits withinthree months thereafter. No coercive measure shall be takenagainst the petitioner during pendency of the appeal before theCIT subject to deposit of Rs.10 Lakh within four weeks. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Himanshu Soni/39