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

PDF · subscribers
CW/19816/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02108466202512 February 2026Author: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by extending the same protection as granted by the Supreme 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, including consequential orders or giving effect to any impugned orders, for as long as the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court continues. The outcome of the present petition is explicitly stated to be governed by the outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025 (tagged with SLP(C) No. 33392/2025). The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the earlier order passed in Pramod Jain.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bitthal Das Maheswari, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. The petition challenged proceedings and an order related to Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court noted that a similar issue was pending before the Supreme Court in Siddharth Totuka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, where proceedings under Section 153C were stayed. The petitioner sought similar protection, and the revenue agreed to follow the Supreme Court's order. The High Court, in a previous order in Pramod Jain vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, had extended the Supreme Court's protection to similar petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, pertaining to 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? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court had stayed proceedings under Section 153C in a related matter and prayed for similar protection. They submitted that the outcome of their petition should be governed by the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision. Revenue's Contention: The respondent (revenue) fairly submitted that the order passed by the Supreme Court would be duly followed and that the present petitions, if disposed of, should be made subject to the final outcome of the Supreme Court's SLP.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2026:RJ-JP:6806-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19816/2025 Bitthal Das Maheswari, S/o Late Balkishan Maheshwari, Aged About 76 Years, R/o 57-C, Saraswati Villa, Vishnu Garden, Khokhawas, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302018 ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4, Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambdekar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saksham Pandey, Adv. & Mr. Shubhendra Singh, Adv. for Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Adv. with Ms. Tanuska Saxena, Adv. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order 12/02/2026

1.

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “Pramod Jain vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax” (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18359/2025) alongwith other connected cases decided on 27.01.2026, had directed as under: “2.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the present matters is under consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Siddharth Central Circle in SLP No. 31711/2025, in which the following order was passed on 08.12.2025: 1.Issue notice. 2.Dasti service, in addition, is permitted. 3.Tag with SLP(C) No. 33392 of 2025. [2026:RJ-JP:6806-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-19816/2025] 4.In the meantime, the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority shall remain stayed insofar as Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned including the order impugned passed by the High Court.”

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, insofar as they pertain to Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including the impugned order under consideration before this Hon’ble Court in the present case, have been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is, therefore, prayed that similar protection be extended in the present petitions as well. Learned counsel further fairly submits that the outcome of these petitions shall be governed by the outcome of the said SLP and, thus, subject to such outcome, the petitions may be disposed of while extending the aforesaid protection.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court shall be duly followed. He further submits that in the event these petitions are disposed of, the same may be made subject to the final outcome of the aforesaid SLP.

5.

Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, this Court is of the clear opinion that once the narrow compass of the issue is being directly adjudicated 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.

6.

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 order(s), if any, including giving effect to any impugned orders, for so long as the interim protection 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.

7.

The instant writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.”

2.

Considering the nature of controversy raised in the present petition which is identical to the aforesaid case, both the learned

[2026:RJ-JP:6806-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-19816/2025] counsel are ad idem that the present petition be also disposed of accordingly.

3.

Keeping in view the above, the present writ petition is disposed 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.

4.

All pending applications also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ HEENA/67

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →