ASHOK PARWAL (AY 2016-17) S/O SHRI RADHEY SHYAM PARWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Facts

The petitioner, Ashok Parwal, filed a Civil Writ Petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur challenging proceedings related to assessment year 2016-17. The core of the dispute involved Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel informed the Court that the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering a similar controversy in Siddharth Totuka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle (SLP No. 31711/2025). In that SLP, the Apex Court had issued notice, permitted dasti service, tagged it with another SLP, and crucially, stayed proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority concerning Section 153C and the impugned High Court order.

Held

The High Court held that given the narrow compass of the issue being directly adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a related matter concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it was appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by extending the same protection as granted by the Apex Court. 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 or impugned orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Apex Court continues. The outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025 (tagged with SLP(C) No. 33392/2025) was declared to govern the outcome of the present petition. No specific issue was left undecided, as the petition 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 order, should be stayed pending the outcome of the Apex Court's decision in Siddharth Totuka's case (SLP No. 31711/2025)? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Apex Court had already granted a stay on proceedings related to Section 153C in a similar matter and prayed for similar protection. The petitioner further submitted that the outcome of their petition should be governed by the outcome of the aforesaid 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 present petition, if disposed of, should be made subject to the final outcome of the SLP.