MANOJ KALA S/O SH. MAHENDRA PRAKASH KALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Facts

The petitioners, Abhay Kumar Parakh, Manoj Kala, and Nitin Dusad, filed writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. The petitions challenged orders or actions by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. The core of the dispute appears to relate to proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners sought protection similar to that granted by the Supreme Court in a related matter, Siddharth Totuka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, SLP No. 31711/2025. The High Court had previously considered similar petitions in Pramod Jain vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18359/2025, decided on 27.01.2026.

Held

The High Court held that since the narrow compass of the issue concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was directly being adjudicated by the Supreme Court in Siddharth Totuka, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions by extending the same protection as granted by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Court directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioners, including any consequential orders or giving effect to impugned orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court continues. The outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025 (tagged with SLP(C) No. 33392/2025) shall govern the outcome of the present petitions. The writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the order passed in Pramod Jain (supra), with the observations and directions applying mutatis mutandis.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, specifically concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in Siddharth Totuka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle (SLP No. 31711/2025)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that the Supreme Court had stayed proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority concerning Section 153C in the Siddharth Totuka case. They submitted that the controversy in their petitions was identical and therefore, similar protection should be extended. They further conceded that the outcome of their petitions should be governed by the Supreme Court's decision and sought disposal subject to that outcome. Revenue's Contention: The respondent fairly submitted that the order passed by the Supreme Court would be duly followed. They also agreed that the petitions could be disposed of, subject to the final outcome of the aforesaid SLP.