"[2026:RJ-JP:11185-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4701/2026 Arun Kumar Yadav S/o Sh. Yadunandan Prasad Yadav, Aged About 52 Years, Working At of 501, 5Th Floor, Apex Tower, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302015, Rajasthan R/o 9, Gali No. 1, Ward No. 8, Subhash Colony, Kalwad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi - 110001. 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Through Its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 3. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur Having Office At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur-302005. 4. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Jaipur, Having Office At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur-302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma Upadhyay Mr. Mithun Bhai Chaturvedi Mr. Saurabh Yadav Mr. Santosh Sharma Ms. Jai Kishan Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Bhardwaj on behalf of Mr. Samit Bishnoi (DSGI) (for UOI-R/1 & R/2) Mr. Nitin Jain with Ms. Kriti Kalawatia Mr. Vaibhav Pareek (for R/3 & R/4) HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 17/03/2026 1. Issue notice. Printed from counselvise.com [2026:RJ-JP:11185-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-4701/2026] 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revenue accepts notice. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited our attention to Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act (for short 'of the Act'), which reads as under: \"220(6) Where an assessee has presented an appeal under section 246 [or section 246A] the [Assessing Officer] may, in his discretion and subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose in the circumstances of the case, treat the assessee as not being in default in respect of the amount in dispute in the appeal, even though the time for payment has expired, as long as such appeal remains undisposed of.\" 4. Thus, we find that the Assessing Officer (AO) has erroneously rejected the application for staying the recovery proceedings till the appeal is pending. The Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) dated 31.07.2017 deals with a situation where 20% amount is deposited, which would result in mandatory stay, however, an application under Section 220(6) of the Act has to be examined independently of the CBDT Circular dated 31.07.2017 as discretion has been allowed to the concerned AO to not proceed with recovery proceedings. 5. We, therefore, find that the order passed by the AO is laconic and there is no application of mind at the stage of AO. 6. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2026. 7. Both the learned counsel are ad idem that directions are issued to the AO to reexamine the application in light of Section 220(6) of the Act. The department would have no objection. Printed from counselvise.com [2026:RJ-JP:11185-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-4701/2026] 8. We, therefore, dispose of this petition with direction to the Assessing Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Jaipur, to examine the application moved by the assessee as the appeal is pending and take a decision in terms of Section 220(6) of the Act. 9. The decision may be taken by the Assessing Officer within a period of seven days. 10. All pending applications stand disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ DEEPTA ARORA /197 Printed from counselvise.com "