DINESH KUMAR KHATORIA S/O LATE SHRI DAMODAR LAL KHATORIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/11441/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02062838202516 September 2025Author: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANJEET PUROHIT2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was identical to a previously decided case concerning the same petitioner for Assessment Year 2011-2012. In the prior judgment, the Court had observed that while the notice itself might not have contained all details, the satisfaction note indicated the basis for initiating proceedings under Section 153C. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously challenged a Section 148 notice, which was quashed with liberty granted to the authorities to proceed. Therefore, the challenge on grounds of limitation was not sustainable. The Court had concluded that there were no reasons to interfere with the Section 153C notice and that the petitioner was free to raise all necessary arguments and defenses before the assessing authorities, who were directed to pass a speaking order. Applying the same reasoning mutatis mutandis to the present case for Assessment Year 2010-2011, the petition was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dinesh Kumar Khatoria, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2010-2011. The present case is stated to be identical to a previous writ petition filed by the same petitioner (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11539/2025) concerning Assessment Year 2011-2012, which was decided on August 20, 2025. In the prior case, the challenge was to a Section 153C notice dated February 4, 2025. The petitioner's counsel had requested the case to be taken up later but did not appear in the second round. The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4, Jaipur.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2010-2011 is valid and requires interference by the High Court. Assessee's contentions (inferred from the previous judgment and the current proceeding): The petitioner likely argued that the notice under Section 153C was invalid. In the prior case, it was noted that the notice did not mention any specific amount, nor was the petitioner's name mentioned in the search proceedings. However, the satisfaction note indicated that documents pertaining to the petitioner were received in a pen drive and that entries related to cash loans paid by the petitioner were found during search proceedings concerning another individual, Ramesh Chand Maheshwari. The petitioner had also previously challenged a Section 148 notice, which was quashed with liberty to the authorities to proceed according to law. Revenue's contentions: The revenue likely contended that the notice under Section 153C was validly issued based on information gathered during search proceedings, and the petitioner had the opportunity to present their defense before the assessing authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 131,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JP:37693-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11441/2025 Dinesh Kumar Khatoria S/o Late Shri Damodar Lal Khatoria, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 626 Balaji Ka Rasta, Ghat Gate Bazar Jaipur 302002 ----Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4 Jaipur. Address Room No 416, 4Th Floor Jeevan Nidhi II, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle Jaipur 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Adv. Mr. Sarvesh Jain, Adv. Mr. Meyhul Mittal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order 16/09/2025

1.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11539/2025 on 20.08.2025 and the present writ petition is, the year of assessment.

2.

In the present petition, year of assessment is 2010-2011, while for the year 2011-2012 we had passed the following order in Income Tax(supra):- “1. The challenge in this petition is to the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "IT Act) dated 04.02.2025 with regard to Assessment Year 2011-2012. [2025:RJ-JP:37693-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-11441/2025]

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the notice impugned, neither amount has been mentioned nor in the search conducted name of the petitioner has been mentioned, however, from the perusal of the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C with reference to the petitioner for the year 2011-2012, as conveyed to the petitioner, it is apparent that Dinesh Kumar Khatoria's documents were received in pen drive. Entries pertaining to Dinesh Kumar Khatoria, who paid cash loans to various persons, were found during the search proceedings relating to Ramesh Chand Maheshwari under Section 131 of the IT Act. We also noticed that the petitioner had earlier preferred the writ petition Nos.4490/2022 and 4635/2022 before this Court challenging the notice issued to him under Section 148 of the IT Act and this Court quashed the proceedings under Section 148 of the IT Act vide order dated 19.03.2024, with liberty to the Authorities to proceed against the writ petitioner in accordance with law. Since, this Court had granted permission to the respondent-Tax Authorities to proceed, the challenge on the ground of limitation would also not arise as the order was passed by this Court granting liberty to the authorities to proceed.

3.

In view thereto, the notice issued to the petitioner with regard to undisclosed cash loans of an amount of Rs.3,55,00,000/-, which remains undisclosed, has to be answered by the petitioner to the Authorities. We, therefore, do not find any reasons to interfere with the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 153C. The petitioner is free to take up all the necessary arguments and defense available to him before the Authorities, who would be required to pass an appropriate speaking order.

4.

With the said observations, the writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

5.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. ”

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is present in the morning and requested the case to be taken in the second round, however, even in the second round she has not chosen to appear.

4.

Keeping in view the above, the present writ petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms mutatis mutandis.

5.

All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/15

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →