The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.11.2016 (Annexure-A), passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, whereby the learned Assistant Commissioner has refused to stay the collection of demand for the Assessment Year 2014-15, and has directed the petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed demand, amounting to Rs.3,37,11,514/- by 5.12.2016. The petitioner has also challenged another order, also dated 23.11.2016 (Annexure-B), whereby again the learned Assistant Commissioner has refused to stay the collection of demand for the Assessment Year 2015-16, and has directed the petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed demand, amounting to Rs.22,92,02,561/- by 5.12.2016. Lastly, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.1.2016, whereby the Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax (‘Prl. CIT’ for short), has confirmed the order dated 23.11.2016, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, and has directed the petitioner to deposit 15% of the total disputed demand amount within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner entered the ECommerce sector; it is engaged inter alia in the business of wholesale distribution of books, mobiles, media, computers, gaming consoles, and other related accessories. The petitioner submitted its Income Tax Return on 1.10.2014, for the Assessment Year 2014-15, wherein it declared a loss of Rs.3,58,81,84,343/-. According to the petitioner, in order to enter the Ecommerce sector, and in order to secure a market, the petitioner is selling the goods at prices lower than the purchase price. Thus, ever since the beginning of its business in the year 2011, it has been suffering losses for the Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, and also for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

3. On 28.10.2016, the petitioner’s Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2014-15 was selected for scrutiny under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short). Meanwhile, for the Assessment Year 2015-16, the petitioner filed its Income Tax Return on 10.9.2015, wherein it had declared that again it suffered a loss of Rs.7,96,34,36,865/-. On 28.10.2016, two separate assessments orders were passed, namely for the Assessment Year 2014-15, and 2015-16. For the Assessment Years 2014-15, an amount of Rs.5,01,86,62,282/- was added, whereas, for the Assessment Year 2015-16, an amount of Rs.12,04,67,98,537/- was added. The balance tax payable by the petitioner was determined to be Rs.28,94,96,028/- for the Assessment Year 2014-15, and Rs.1,36,99,99,033/- for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner was directed to deposit the said amount within a period of thirty days.

4. Challenging both the Assessment Orders, the petitioner filed Appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT (A)’ for short). Moreover, while filing the appeals, it filed two separate applications before the learned Assistant Commissioner for keeping the demand in abeyance. However, by two orders, dated 23.11.2016, the respondent No.1, the learned Assistant Commissioner directed the petitioner to deposit 15% of the disputed demand amounting to Rs.3,37,11,514/- for the Assessment Year 2014-15, and to deposit Rs.22,92,02,561/- for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

5. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by both the orders dated 23.11.2016, directing it to deposit 15% of the disputed demand amount, it filed two Review Petitions before the Prl. CIT, respondent No.2. However, by orders dated 28.11.2016 and 25.1.2017, the Prl. CIT has rejected the petitioner’s Review Petitions, and has confirmed the order dated 23.11.2016. Hence these petitions before this Court.

6. Mr. K.G. Raghavan, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions :

Firstly, although Section 246 of the Act, and Section 246A of the Act deal with appelable orders, neither of the sections impose any li