##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:15249-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2514/2016

Raj Kumar Jain son of Mohanlal Ji, Proprietor M/s. Sunder Sarees, Mahaveer Market, through its natural Guardian Sh. Tarachand son of Mohanlal Ji aged about 56 years, A-98, Shastri

Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1.Union Of India, Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jodhpur.

2.The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Jodhpur.

3.The Tax Recovery Officer (Income Tax), Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jodhpur.

4.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jodhpur.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma Mr. Pawan Kumar Patel

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order(Oral)

02/04/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the demand notices dated 31.12.2012 and 31.01.2013, and further recovery notices dated 23.09.2015, 12.10.2015, 24.11.2015, and 20.01.2016, which were issued demanding ₹19,91,152/- from the

petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that an assessment order dated 30.10.2001 was passed against the petitioner determining undisclosed income of ₹19,07,093/- for the block period 1990–91

to 2000–01.

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:05:04 PM)

(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 05:23:35 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15249-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-2514/2016] 2.1 Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jodhpur, who by order dated 10.06.2002 partly allowed the appeal and reduced the undisclosed income to ₹5,83,847/-. Both the petitioner and the revenue challenged this order before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Jodhpur. By order dated 09.11.2009, the ITAT partly allowed the revenue’s appeal and dismissed the petitioner’s cross-objections, issuing directions regarding application of gross profit rate, treatment of household expenses, telescoping of additions, and recalculation of interest under Section 158BFA(1), while directing that reasonable opportunity be given to the

petitioner.

2.2. Despite the ITAT’s directions, no fresh compliance order was passed by the concerned authorities. Instead, demand notices dated 31.12.2012 and 31.01.2013, followed by further notices dated 23.09.2015, 12.10.2015, 24.11.2015, and 20.01.2016, were issued demanding ₹19,91,952/- and threatening coercive action. The petitioner had earlier deposited ₹1,16,500/- pursuant

to the original assessment order.

2.3. Subsequent requests by the petitioner for copies of all relevant orders, including the order pursuant to the ITAT’s decision, were not complied with, except for providing copies of earlier orders dated 30.10.2001 and 10.06.2002. No order giving effect to the ITAT decision has been passed within the prescribed limitation period, rendering the demand non-existent in law, nevertheless, the respondents have continued recovery

proceedings.

2.4. Hence, this instant writ petition.

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:05:04 PM)

(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 05:23:35 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15249-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-2514/2016] 3. During the course of the proceedings, this Court, by order dated 15.03.2016, had granted a stay on further proceedings

arising from the show-cause notice, which reads as follows:

“Issue notice. Issue notice of the stay petition also, returnable in three weeks.

Notices when issued be given ‘dasti’ to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the meanwhile and until further orders, in case petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by 15.04.2016, the respondents shall not take coercive measures for recovery of rest of the impugned

demand against the petitioner.”

4. Having gone through the averments contained in the petition and the objections raised thereto in the reply filed by the respondents, it emerges that the petition was filed way back in 2012 and, owing to the stay granted by this Court, further proceedings have remained stalled, and no final decision could be taken on the impugned notices dated 31.