"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Stay Application No.3/JAB/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 185/JAB/2025) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sanjay Kumar Jain, Shop 15A, Anjuman Market, Marhatal, Jabalpur (MP). v. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur (MP)-1 TAN/PAN:ADTPJ0941M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Manish Koshal, CA Respondent by: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, DR Date of hearing: 23 12 2025 Date of pronouncement: 09 01 2026 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: The Stay Application in SA. No.03/JAB/2025 for Assessment Year 2018-19 filed by the assessee has arisen out of ITA No.185/JAB/2025. By way of this Stay Application, the assessee is seeking stay of assessment proceedings initiated in pursuance to the order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) dated 27.03.2025. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the application. He contended that the case of the assessee was re-opened for verifying the source of cash deposit, and an assessment order u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act was passed on 18.03.2023. Subsequently, the said order dated 18.03.2023 was revised by the Ld. PCIT, Jabalpur-1 vide order dated 27.03.2025, whereby the Ld. PCIT held the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Accordingly, the impugned order was Printed from counselvise.com S.A No.3/JAB/2025 Page 2 of 3 set aside and specific directions were issued for framing the assessment afresh. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before this Tribunal, which is presently pending adjudication. It is also noteworthy that the assessee had independently challenged the assessment order dated 18.03.2023, passed u/s 147 read with section 144B of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A), and the said appeal is also still pending. He further submitted that the action of the Ld. PCIT is ex facie bad, as it has caused a multiplicity of litigation. He contended that the Ld. PCIT could not have set aside the assessment order which was under challenge before the authorities below on the similar point. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue opposed the submissions and contended that the assessee is seeking stay of proceedings under the guise of stay of outstanding demand which is not permissible under law. He further relied on the provision of section 253 and section 254 of the Act. 4. We have heard the rival submission and perused the materials available on records. The assessee is seeking stay of proceedings by placing reliance on the provisions of section 254(2A) of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Act is reproduced as under: - “254(2A) Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, after considering the merits of the application made by the assessee, pass an order of stay in any proceedings relating to an appeal filed under sub-section (1) of section 253, for a period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of such order [subject to the condition that the assessee deposits not less than twenty per cent of the amount of tax, interest, fee, penalty, or any other sum payable under the provisions of this Act, or furnishes security of equal amount in respect thereof] and the Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within the said period of stay specified in that order.” Printed from counselvise.com S.A No.3/JAB/2025 Page 3 of 3 5. In our considered view, the contention of the assessee is misplaced as section 253(7) of the Act, merely speaks about the fee payable on an application for stay of demand. However, as per the proviso to section 254(2A) of the Act, the Tribunal may pass an order granting stay in any proceedings relating to an appeal filed u/s 253(1) of the Act for a period not exceeding 180 days. In the present case, it is seen that the assessment order has been set aside with regard to specific issues. The issues are not subject matter of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the application seeking stay of proceedings is devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. 6. In the result, the Stay Application No. 3/JAB/2025 in ITA. No.185/JAB/2025 of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09/01/2026. Sd/- Sd/- [NIKHIL CHOUDHARY] [KUL BHARAT] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 09/01/2026 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT (Judicial) 4. The PCIT 5. DR, ITAT, Jabalpur 6. Guard File By order // True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, Jabalpur Printed from counselvise.com "