BITTHAL DAS MAHESWARI, S/O LATE BALKISHAN MAHESHWARI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Facts

The petitioner, Bitthal Das Maheswari, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an Assessment Order dated 24.11.2025, passed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Both parties agreed that the issue was similar to a controversy already decided by the High Court in D.B. CWP No.1486/2026. That earlier order referenced a stay granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharth Totuka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle in SLP No. 31711/2025, which stayed proceedings concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought similar protection, and the respondent agreed to abide by the Apex Court's order.

Held

The High Court, acknowledging that the issue was identical to a previous matter (D.B. CWP No.1486/2026) where similar protection was granted based on an Apex Court order, decided to dispose of the present writ petition in the same terms. The Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioner, nor give effect to any consequential orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 31711/2025 continues. The outcome of the said SLP was declared to govern the outcome of the present petition. No specific issue was left undecided, as the matter was disposed of based on the Apex Court's interim order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including the impugned assessment order, should be stayed in light of the interim protection granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 31711/2025. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the controversy was identical to one already disposed of by the High Court in D.B. CWP No.1486/2026, which itself extended the protection granted by the Apex Court in Siddharth Totuka's case. The petitioner prayed for similar protection, stating the outcome of their petition should be governed by the outcome of the Apex Court SLP. Revenue's Contention: The respondent fairly submitted that the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court would be duly followed and that the disposal of the present petition should be made subject to the final outcome of the aforesaid SLP.