JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi, J. - These Petitions arise in the common background. They have been heard together and would be finally disposed of by this common order. For convenience, we may record facts from Writ Petition (L) No.810 of 2019. 2. The Petitioners have challenged an order dated 13/02/2019 passed by the Respondent No.2 Income Tax Officer and another order dated 05/03/2019 passed by the Principle Commissioner of Income Tax. Under such orders, the Petitioners are directed to deposit 20% of the tax demand arising out of the order of assessment dated 24/12/2018. The Petitioners pray that the entire tax recovery be stayed pending Petitioners'' Appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. The Petitioners'' main ground in support of their prayer is that the ground on which the additions are made by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment, is already reversed by the Appellate Commissioner in case of another Assessee. According to the Petitioner, the facts being identical, the Petitioners should also get the benefit of such order of the Appellate Commissioner. In view of the facts, the Petitioners request that the entire tax demand be suspended pending consideration of the Petitioners'' Appeal. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners submitted that even the CBDT circular which lays down general guidelines for deposit of tax pending Appeal, recognizes a situation where on similar issue the Appellate Authority or the Tribunal has already taken a decision in favour of the Assessee. In such circumstances, formula of depositing 20% tax pending Appeal, can be relaxed. 3. In our order dated 14/03/2019, in paragraphs 2 to 5, we had outlined the factual and legal controversies arising in this Petition in the following manner : "2. The petitioner is a trust. The object of the trust is to acquire Non-Performing Assets ("NPAs" for short) by banks and recover dues from the defaulters. For the assessment year 2016-17, the Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment on 24.12.2018 making certain disallowances and additions in the hands of the assessee which has given rise to a tax demand of Rs. 6.69 crores (rounded off). Against such order of assessment, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 16.1.2019. Pending such appeal, the petitioner first requested the Assessing Officer to keep tax demand in abeyance. 6.69 crores (rounded off). Against such order of assessment, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 16.1.2019. Pending such appeal, the petitioner first requested the Assessing Officer to keep tax demand in abeyance. The Assessing Officer passed an order on 13.2.2019 directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the tax demand, upon which the rest of the recovery would be stayed. The petitioner thereupon approached the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and requested for full waiver of recovery. The Commissioner rejected such a petition by the impugned order dated 5.3.2019. Against this order, the petition has been filed. In other petitions, though figures are varying, the facts are common. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the present set of assessment orders were made in hands of other similar trusts created under ARCIL. Such order of assessment was challenged before the CIT(A) and by his order dated 3.1.2018, the appeal of the assessee was allowed and all the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted. When this fact was brought to the notice of the Commissioner while requesting for stay, the Commissioner in the impugned order, observed that such order of the appellate Commissioner has not been accepted by the Revenue and in other cases, no appeal could be filed due to low tax effect. 4. It would prima facie appear that the assessment orders in the present case are based on same additions and disallowances which under similar if not identical circumstances, have been deleted by the appellate Commissioner which order as of today holds the field. Under the circumstances, it would prima facie appear that no recovery pending the appeal before the appellate Commissioner could be carried out. This Court in the case of UTI Mutual Fund vs. Income Tax Officer, (2012) 345 ITR 71 (Bom) had observed that, "If the Assessing Officer has taken a view contrary to what has been held in the preceding previous years without there being a material change in facts or law, that is a relevant consideration in deciding the application for stay." 5. In the present case, prima facie, the Revenue is unable to point out any material change in the facts or law on the basis of which the Assessing Officer has made the additions." 4. In the present case, prima facie, the Revenue is unable to point out any material change in the facts or law on the basis of which the Assessing Officer has made the additions." 4. The learned Counsel for the Revenue opposed these Petitions contending that the Respondent authorities have passed orders which are in consonance with the CBDT''s circular. The Petitioners have not made out any case for interference. 5. Having thus heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears an undisputed position that the ground on which the Assessing Officer has made additions in the order of assessment giving rise to the tax demand, is already decided in favour of some other Assessee by the Appellate Commissioner in other proceedings. Even though this Assessee in such Appellate proceedings is not the Petitioner, nevertheless, if the facts and law are identical, there is no reason why the present Petitioners also should not get the benefit of such Appellate order passed by the Commissioner in case of another Assessee. 6. In fact, the Respondent No.1 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, while rejecting the Petitioners'' request for complete stay pending the Appeal, agreed that the issue is covered by the Appellate order. However, he observed that the Department has not accepted such decision of the Appellate Commissioner and has carried the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. It is entirely open for the Department to carry the challenge against the order of Appellate Commissioner before the Tribunal. However, till such order is reversed by the Tribunal, the effect of such order would continue to apply. In other words, in view of the Appellate order, which is in force presently, the Department cannot take a stand that such order has no binding effect or that said order should be ignored for the purpose of deciding the condition of deposit of tax pending Appeal. 7. In view of such facts, these Petitions are disposed of with the following directions : ORDER (i) There shall be unconditional stay against the recovery of tax pending Appeals. 7. In view of such facts, these Petitions are disposed of with the following directions : ORDER (i) There shall be unconditional stay against the recovery of tax pending Appeals. (ii) If the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in case of Scheme A1 of ARCIL CPS 002 XI Trust is reversed by the Tribunal, it would be open for the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to impose a suitable condition for the Assessee to deposit tax pending Appeals, which order shall be passed after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. (iii) The Petitioners shall not contribute to any delay in disposal of the Appeals. If in the opinion of the Department, the Petitioners are responsible for delay in disposal of the Appeals, it would be open for the Department to apply for recalling this order. (iv) With these directions, all Petitions are disposed of.