SIDDHARTH TOTUKA S/O LATE SHRI ANIL KUMAR TOTUKA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/14313/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02080060202519 September 2025Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANJEET PUROHIT3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Civil Writ Petition, holding that the notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid. The Court referred to its previous decision in Vaibhav Global Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which dealt with a similar situation. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously challenged notices under Section 148 and the High Court had quashed those proceedings with liberty to the respondent-Tax Authorities to proceed in accordance with law. The Court found no reason to interfere with the notice issued under Section 153C, as it was a consequence of the liberty granted. The petitioner was granted liberty to raise all necessary arguments and defenses before the assessing authorities, who were directed to pass a speaking order. The issue of limitation was also considered not to arise due to the prior court order granting liberty to proceed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Siddharth Totuka, has filed a Civil Writ Petition challenging a notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2011-2012. The notice pertains to undisclosed cash loans amounting to Rs. 3,55,00,000. The proceedings were initiated based on documents found during a search related to Ramesh Chand Maheshwari, where entries pertaining to Dinesh Kumar Khatoria, who paid cash loans, were discovered. The petitioner had previously challenged notices under Section 148 for the same assessment year, which were quashed by the High Court with liberty to the authorities to proceed. The present notice under Section 153C is a consequence of this liberty granted to the revenue. The High Court refers to its previous judgments in similar matters.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2011-2012, is valid, considering it is based on documents found during a search related to another individual and the petitioner had previously challenged notices under Section 148 which were quashed. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the notice under Section 153C is flawed as neither the amount in dispute nor the petitioner's name was mentioned in the search proceedings. The petitioner also relies on the fact that previous notices under Section 148 were quashed. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argues that the notice under Section 153C is a consequence of the liberty granted by the High Court in previous writ petitions to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. The revenue relies on the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C, which was based on documents found during the search.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 148,Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:38424-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14313/2025 Siddharth Totuka S/o Late Shri Anil Kumar Totuka, Aged About 51 Years, R/o D-32-B, Malviya Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-04, New Central Revenue Building, Janpath, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Shara, Adv. 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 19/09/2025 1. Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued however, we refrain from changing our view which we have already taken in the case of Vaibhav Global Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12529/2025, wherein it held as under:- “1. This matter is related to Dinesh Kumar Khatoria Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax in compliance of which this Court has passed the following order:- “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. 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

[2025:RJ-JP:38424-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-14313/2025] 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.” 2. The notice of the petitioner is the consequence of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal & Ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.: reported in 2024 (4) TMI 196 (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019) decided on 19.03.2024, where Division Bench held as under:- “40. In view of above discussion the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders are quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.” 3. It is noticed that the said judgment was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the

[2025:RJ-JP:38424-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-14313/2025] meanwhile taking cue from the observations made by Division Bench, the Revenue has initiated proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961) against the petitioner. Since we find that so far as in the earlier writ petitions observations were accepted by the assessee, the notice issued to the petitioner for undisclosed income, as revealed while conducting search of another person, and there being a satisfaction note which has been made a basis for initiating proceedings under Section 153C of the Act of 1961, we are not inclined in any manner to interfere with the action, as taken by the Revenue. 4. With the aforesaid observations, the present civil writ petition is dismissed. However, all the grounds are open for the petitioner to be taken up before the authorities. 5. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.” 2. Keeping in view the judgment passed by this Court in Vaibhav Global Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the present Civil Writ Petition is dismissed, mutatis mutandis. 3. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/32

More judgments on Section 153C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →