Assessment orders must provide adequate reasoning and consider potential hardship; failure renders them unsustainable, necessitating reevaluation by tax authorities.

ORDER :

S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"a. Issue of Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any such other appropriate writ to quash order dated 11.11.2025 bearing DINITBA/COM/F/17/2025-26/1082464036(1) issued by the First Respondent (Annexure-A);

b. Issue necessary order/s, direction/s, to the Respondents to refrain from recovering amounts from the Petitioner until the conclusion of appeal proceedings by the Second Respondent;

c. Issue direction/s, to the Second Respondent appellate authority to adjudicate the appeal filed by the petitioner expeditiously;

d. Pass any such other order/s direction/s, etc., as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the above case;"

2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioner had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2020-21 declaring a total income of Rs.2,30,910/-. Thereafter, on 29.06.2021, the 3^rd Respondent issued a notice under Section 143 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the I.T. Act’). Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent issued notice under Section 142 (1) of the I.T. Act and a show-cause notice dated 05.11.2021 and 02.09.2022 respectively to which the petitioner filed its reply dated 05.09.2022. Subsequently, on 22.09.2022 the 3^rd respondent passed an order under (3) read with section 144B of the I.T. Act raising a demand of Rs. 25,22,592/- against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said Assessment Order, the petitioner on 22.10.2022 filed an Appeal before the 2^nd Respondent. Subsequently, on 15.09.2025, the 4^th respondent issued a communication to the petitioner intimating the recover of Rs.25,22,592/- and Rs.59,930/- in respect of the demands raised for the Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively. Subsequently, on 06.10.2025 the petitioner filed an application to the 1^st respondent seeking for stay/recovery of demand until the conclusion of the appeal proceedings. The 1^st respondent on 11.11.2025 passed the impugned order staying the recovery of the said demand subject to the petitioner making a payment of Rs. 5,04,520/- being 20% of the total demand for the Assessment Years 2020-21 and 2021-22. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner is before this court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents – revenue and perused the material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in controversy is directly and squarely covered by a judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT; [2017] 396 ITR 511 (Karnataka).

5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that the issue in controversy is directly and squarely covered by a judgment of this court in the case of Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd.’s case supra, which reads as under:

“1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated23.11.2016 (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 directe