1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in both the writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner was subjected to order of assessment by the assessing officer by order dated 30-12-2017. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of assessment, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act of 1961') before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur. During the pendency of appeal, the petitioner also filed an application for stay of demand under Section 220(6) of the Act of 1961 followed by another application dated 28-2-2018 for staying the demand of Rs. 8,86,98,510/-. The applications filed by the petitioner were rejected by the learned assessing officer on 7-3-2018 stating that in accordance with the memorandum dated 31-7-2017 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, deposit of 20% of the demand due is imperative. Questioning legality, validity and correctness of the orders dated 7-3-2018, these writ petitions have been preferred.

3. Mr. Sumit Nema, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Section 119(1)(a) of the Act of 1961 has the force of law, but the assessing officer was required to consider the application for stay on merits and if he comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has prima facie case for grant of stay, then the question of deposit could have been considered, but the pre-deposit of 20% cannot be made condition precedent to consider the application for grant of interim relief. He would further submit that the application for stay of demand has not been considered on merits and the application has been disposed of stating that the 20% of the demand due be paid and proof of the same be produced within seven days from the date of receipt of notice, as such, the orders impugned are illegal and bad in law, therefore, same be set aside and the matters be remanded to the appellate authority to consider afresh and pass speaking order in accordance with law.

4. Mrs. Naushina Afrin Ali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit that the order passed by the assessing officer is challengeable before the Principal jurisdictional administrative member i.e. the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for review of the decision of the assessing officer, therefore, the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy against that rejection, as the review application has to be decided by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax within a period of two weeks. Therefore, the writ petitions as framed and filed are not maintainable. In accordance with the circulars, the petitioner has to deposit 20% of the demand due as per the CBDT circular dated 29-2-2016 modified by another circular dated 31-7-2017, as such, the impugned orders are supportable in law and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

6. Section 119 of the Act of 1961 provides for instructions to subordinate authorities. Sub-section (1) of Section 119 of the Act of 1961 provides as under: -

“119. (1) The Board may, from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to other income-tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of this Act, and such authorities and all other persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions and directions of the Board :

Provided that no such orders, instructions or directions shall be issued—

(a) so as to require any income-tax authority to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner; or

(b) so as to interfere with the discretion of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the exercise of his appellate func