LATE PREM CHAND DHANDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that given the narrow compass of the issue being directly adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharth Totuka's case concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by extending the same protection as granted by the 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 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) was stated to govern the outcome of the present petitions. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order passed in the case of Pramod Jain (supra), with the observations and directions applying mutatis mutandis.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Late Prem Chand Dhandia (through legal heirs), filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging an action by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the core issue in the present case is identical to matters pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharth Totuka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, SLP No. 31711/2025. The Apex Court had, on 08.12.2025, stayed proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including impugned High Court orders. The petitioner sought similar protection. The respondent's counsel agreed to follow the Apex Court's order and that the present petition's outcome should be subject to the SLP's final decision.
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 interim protection granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharth Totuka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle (SLP No. 31711/2025)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that since the Hon'ble Apex Court has stayed proceedings concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in a similar matter, the present writ petition should also be granted similar protection. They further submitted that the outcome of their petition should be governed by the outcome of the aforesaid SLP. Revenue's Contention: The respondent's counsel fairly submitted that the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court would be duly followed and that the present petitions, if disposed of, should be made subject to the final outcome of the 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 10/02/2026
Issue notice to the respondent.
Mr. Siddharth Bapna, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent.
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
[2026:RJ-JP:6110-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-2624/2026] consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Siddharth Totuka Vs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle in SLP No. 31711/2025, in which the following 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 insofar as Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned including the order impugned passed by the High Court.”
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.
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.
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.
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,
[2026:RJ-JP:6110-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-2624/2026] 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.
The instant 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.
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.
All pending applications also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ RIYA/7
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026