Seeta Devi Choudhary v. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalore, Rajasthan
High Court
19 Mar 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · rhcjodh240618
Parties
Seeta Devi Choudhary v. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalore, Rajasthan
Date of order
19 Mar 2020
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Seeta Devi Choudhary v. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalore, Rajasthan, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.
Decision: 8.Stay petition also stands disposed of.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3830/2020
Seeta Devi Choudhary W/o Shri Kewelram Choudhary, AgedAbout 38 Years, Having Place Of Business At Village Bhorada,Tehsil Ahore, Jalore (Rajasthan)- 344043.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalore, Rajasthan-344043.
2. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Income-TaxBhawan, Paota, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342003.Bhawan, Paota, Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342003.
3. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Through Its BranchManage, Having Office At Near Bus Stand, Bhorada,Jalore- Rajasthan.Manage, Having Office At Near Bus Stand, Bhorada,Jalore- Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Gattani
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
19/03/2020
Order
1.Admittedly, against the assessment order dated 21.12.2019,a statutory appeal has been provided under the Income Tax Act,1951. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissionerof Income Tax, Jodhpur.
2.As a matter of fact, such appeal as well as a stay applicationhas been filed on 08.01.2020.
3.Mr. Prateek Gattani, learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that on the one hand, the Assessing Authority is notdeciding petitioner’s application under Section 220(6) of theIncome Tax Act, and the Appellate Authority is not taking up hisappeal for consideration and on the other hand, the Assessing
Authority – Respondent No.1 has attached petitioners BankAccount for recovery of the demand raised vide impugnedassessment order.
4.Petitioner, whose Bank account has already been attached,apprehends further coercive measures for recovery.
5.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due tofinancial constraint, which have further worsen on account ofCOVID-19, the petitioner is not in a position to deposit even therequisite amount of 20% as mandated by the Circular of CBDT.
6.Without observing anything on merit of assessment order oron petitioner’s stay application, this Court deems it appropriate todispose of present writ petition with a direction to the AssessingAuthority – respondent No.1 to decide petitioner’s stay applicationwithin a period of 15 days of filing certified copy of the orderinstant.
7.Ordered accordingly.
8.Stay petition also stands disposed of.
13-Ramesh/-
(DINESH MEHTA),J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.