ASHOK CHORDIA S/O SHRI RAJKUMAR SINGH CHORDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that since the narrow compass of the issue was being directly adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Siddharth Totuka litigation concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions by extending the same protection as granted by the Hon'ble Apex 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, nor give effect to any consequential or impugned orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Hon'ble Apex 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 the case of Pramod Jain, with the observations and directions applying mutatis mutandis.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Ashok Chordia, filed multiple writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. These petitions challenged actions by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4, Jaipur. The core of the dispute revolves around proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought similar protection as granted by the Supreme Court in a related matter concerning Siddharth Totuka. The respondent, the Income Tax Department, accepted that the Supreme Court's order would be followed. The High Court noted that the controversy in the present petitions was identical to previously decided cases.
What were the 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 in light of the Supreme Court's order in Siddharth Totuka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (SLP No. 31711/2025)? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court had stayed proceedings concerning Section 153C in the Siddharth Totuka case and prayed for similar protection. They submitted that the outcome of their petitions should be governed by the outcome of the said SLP. Revenue's Contention: The respondent fairly submitted that the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court shall be duly followed and that the petitions, if disposed of, may be made subject to the final outcome of the aforesaid SLP.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 16/02/2026
Issue notice to the respondents.
Mr. Siddharth Bapna, learned counsel, accepts notice on be- half of the respondents.
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “Pramod- Jain vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax” (D.B. CivilWrit Pe- tition No. 18359/2025) alongwith other connected cases decided on 27.01.2026, had directed as under: “2.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thecontroversy involved in the presentmatters is under con-siderationbefore the Hon’ble ApexCourt in SiddharthTotuka Vs.Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle in SLP No. 31711/2025,in which thefollowing
order
was passed on08.12.2025: “1.Issue notice. 2.Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. 3.Tag with SLP(C) No. 33392 of 2025. 4.In the meantime, the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority shall remain stayed inso- faras Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is- concerned including the order impugned passedby the High Court. ”
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that theproceedings before the Adjudicating Au- thority, insofar asthey pertain to Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961,including the impugned order under consideration beforethis Hon’ble Court in the present case, have been stayedby the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is, therefore, prayed that-
[2026:RJ-JP:7196-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-13776/2025] similar protection be extended in the present peti- tions aswell. Learned counsel further fairly submits that the out-come of these petitions shall be gov- erned by the outcomeof the said SLP and, thus, subject to such outcome, thepetitions may be dis- posed of while extending the aforesaid protection. 4.Learned counsel for the respondents fairly sub- mits thatthe order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court shall be dulyfollowed. He further submits that in the event these peti-tions are disposed of, the same may be made subject tothe final out- come of the aforesaid SLP. 5.Having considered the submissions made at the Bar,this Court is of the clear opinion that once the narrowcompass of the issue is being directly adju- dicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in pursuance of the litigation undergone by the parties pertaining to Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions by extending the same protection as granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Accordingly, it is directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the petitioners, as also consequential or- der(s), if any, including giving effect to any im- pugned orders, for so long as the interim protec- tion granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court continues to operate. The outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025 (tagged with SLP(C) No. 33392/2025) shall govern the outcome of the present petitions.
The in- stant writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.”
Considering the nature of controversy raised in the present petition which is identical to the aforesaid cases, both the learned counsel are ad idem that the present petition be also disposed of accordingly.
[2026:RJ-JP:7196-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-13776/2025]
Keeping in view the above, the present writ petition is dis- posed of in terms of order dated 27.01.2026 passed in the case of Pramod Jain (supra). The observations/directions therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case.
All pending applications also stand disposed of. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Dushyant/8-14 (same order)
More judgments on Section 153C
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 874/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ajay Singh, Kota vs DCIT, Central Circle, KotaITA 495/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
