MAHIMA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/15285/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02082525202214 October 2025Author: AVNEESH JHINGAN,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the petition in terms of its earlier order dated 21.08.2025 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14638/2022 and connected matters. This order, in turn, referred to recent judgments of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Vikram Kapahi ([2025] 170 taxmann.com 593 (SC)), Income Tax Officer Vs. Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya ([2024] 168 taxmann.com 588 (SC)), and Income Tax Officer Vs. Pradeep Himatlal Shah ([2025] 170 taxmann.com 472 (SC)). In these Supreme Court cases, Special Leave Petitions were disposed of in terms of the judgment in Rajeev Bansal (supra), with the observation that the Assessing Officer shall dispose of the petitions in accordance with the law laid down therein. Therefore, the High Court implicitly held that the reassessment proceedings were indeed barred by limitation as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, and the petition was disposed of accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mahima Real Estate Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging reassessment proceedings initiated for assessment year 2016-17. The core of the challenge was that these proceedings were barred by limitation. The petitioner argued that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Versus Rajeev Bansal (SC) 2024 INSC 754. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4, Jaipur, and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur. The High Court was considering the writ petition filed by the assessee against the revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated for assessment year 2016-17 are barred by limitation, and if the matter is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Versus Rajeev Bansal (SC) 2024 INSC 754? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation and the issue is squarely covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India Versus Rajeev Bansal (SC) 2024 INSC 754. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contentions raised by the revenue in opposition to the assessee's argument regarding limitation and the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision. However, the parties were stated to be 'ad idem' (in agreement) that the issue has been dealt with by a Division Bench of the Court.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JP:41902-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15285/2022 Mahima Real Estate Private Limited, 8, Nikhil Apartment, 670, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Authorised Signatory Shri Dhirendra Madan, S/o Shri Dass Ram Madan, Aged About 63 Years, R/o B-22, Prabhu Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur 302004 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 4, Jaipur, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Jaipur, Ncr Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak with Mr. Aaditya Bohra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Mr. Shashwat Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order 14/10/2025

1.

The issue involved in the present petition is as to whether the reassessment proceedings initiated for assessment year 2016- 17 is barred by limitation and the matter is covered by decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Versus Rajeev Bansal (SC) 2024 INSC 754. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that issue has been dealt by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.08.2025 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14638/2022 and connected matters. The operational part of the order is reproduced below:-

[2025:RJ-JP:41902-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-15285/2022] “8. In view of the above, the contentions raised [2025] 170 taxmann.com 593 (SC), decided on 06.01.2025, Income Tax Officer Vs. Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya, reported in [2024] 168 taxmann.com 588 (SC) and Income Tax Officer Vs. Pradeep Himatlal Shah, reported in [2025] 170 taxmann.com 472 (SC), decided on 20.12.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also disposed of the Special Leave Petitoins in terms of the judgment passed in Rajeev Bansal (supra) with the observation that the Assessing Officer shall dispose of the petitions in terms of the law laid down therein.”

3.

In view of the contentions raised above, the petition is disposed of in same terms. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/20

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →