- (1.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite this Court's judgment in the case of Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar vs. ITAT (1997) 223 ITR 192 (Raj.) and Maheshwari Agro Industries vs. Union of India [2012] 206 Taxman 375 cited before the learned Commissioner of Income -tax, Bikaner and also the Assessing Authority wherein it has been held that if demand of tax raised by the Assessing Authority is more than twice the admitted tax liability, then recovery of difference of tax has to be kept in abeyance during pendency by first appeal before the CIT (Appeals) as per the CBDT instructions which are binding on the authorities both these authorities by the impugned orders have merely stayed 50/60 percent of the disputed demand and have asked the petitioner a practising income tax practioner in the same department to make the payment of 40 percent of the disputed demand Rs. 4,07,400/ - in the two instalments.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned additions of income in the hands of a practising advocate are absolutely uncalled for and unjustified and said addiitons were made in the declared income of the practising advocate in the Department out of vengeance and mala fide reasons on the part of the Assessing Aurthority and therefore the impugned assessment order as well as interim stay orders with the aforesaid conditions of deposit of 40 percent of the disputed demand are liable to be quashed. The matter require consideration. Issue show cause notice to the respondents copy of this order may also sent to the respondents along with the notice.
(3.) RULE is made returnable within three weeks "Dasti Direct services permitted.;