Court held that if the demand was under dispute and subject to the appellate proceedings, then, the right of appeal vested in the assessee by virtue of the statute would be rendered illusory and nugatory by the communication from the Assessing Officer. If the amount as directed by the communication was not brought in, the assessee might not have an opportunity to even argue his appeal on the merits or the appeal might become infructuous, if the demand was enforced and executed during its pendency. In that event, the right to seek protection against collection and recovery pending appeal by making an application for stay would also be defeated and frustrated. Such was not the mandate of law. Once it was an appealable order and the appeal had been filed and it was pending, the assessee should have been given either an opportunity to seek a stay during the pendency of the appeal, which power was conferred admittedly on the Commissioner or the Assessing Officer should have kept the demand in abeyance as prayed for by the assessee.

The court directed that the appellate authority should conclude the hearing of the appeals as expeditiously as possible, that during the pendency of the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), the attachment, if any, of the assessee’s bank account should be lifted and that the assessee should not be called upon to make payment of any sum, much less to the extent of 20 per cent. under the assessment order or confirmed demand. ( AY.2015-16)