VIMAL CHAND HIRAWAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/2035/2026HC RajasthanRJHC02008704202603 February 2026Author: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

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 Hon'ble Apex Court, it would be 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 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 petition. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order passed in the case of Pramod Jain.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vimal Chand Hirawat, Legal Heir of Late Sh. Prakash Chand Hirawat, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged an action by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4 Jaipur. The procedural history indicates that a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court in the case of 'Pramod Jain vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax' (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18359/2025) had considered similar matters. These matters were being governed by an order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Siddharth Totuka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle' (SLP No. 31711/2025). The Apex Court had stayed proceedings concerning Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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 SLP No. 31711/2025. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the controversy in the present matter is under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Siddharth Totuka's case, where proceedings concerning Section 153C were stayed. Therefore, similar protection should be extended to the present petition, and the outcome should be governed by the Apex Court's decision. Revenue's Contention: The respondent fairly submitted that the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court shall be duly followed and that the disposal of the present petition should be made subject to the final outcome of the aforesaid 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:4921-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2035/2026 Vimal Chand Hirawat, Legal Heir Of Late Sh. Prakash Chand Hirawat Aged About 76 Years, S/o Kewalchand Hirawat, R/o 17 A, Takhte Shahi Road, Behind Rbi, Kanota Baag, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302004 ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4 Jaipur, Income Tax, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma with Mr. Saksham Pandey For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna along with Ms. Tanushka Saxena HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order 03/02/2026

1.

Issue notice to the respondent.

2.

Mr. Siddharth Bapna, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent.

3.

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 Totuka Vs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle in SLP No. 31711/2025, in which the following order was passed on08.12.2025:

[2026:RJ-JP:4921-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-2035/2026] “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.”

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.

[2026:RJ-JP:4921-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-2035/2026] 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.”

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

All pending applications also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ RIYA/4

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →