DINESH KUMAR KHATORIA S/O LATE SHRI DAMODAR LAL KHATORIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court observed that the satisfaction note for initiating proceedings under Section 153C, referencing the petitioner for AY 2011-2012, indicated that Dinesh Kumar Khatoria's documents were found on a pen drive during search proceedings related to Ramesh Chand Maheshwari. These documents contained entries about the petitioner paying cash loans to various individuals. The Court also noted that the petitioner had previously challenged a notice under Section 148 for the same assessment year, and this Court had quashed those proceedings on 19.03.2024, granting liberty to the authorities to proceed as per law. Given this liberty, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Section 153C notice concerning undisclosed cash loans of Rs. 3,55,00,000. The petitioner was advised to raise all necessary arguments and defenses before the tax authorities, who were directed to pass a speaking order.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Dinesh Kumar Khatoria, challenged a notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 04.02.2025, pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-2012. The petitioner argued that the notice did not specify an amount and his name was not mentioned in the search proceedings. However, the satisfaction note indicated that documents belonging to the petitioner, including entries about cash loans paid to various persons, were found on a pen drive during search proceedings related to Ramesh Chand Maheshwari. The petitioner had previously challenged a notice under Section 148 of the IT Act for the same assessment year, which was quashed by the High Court on 19.03.2024, with liberty granted to the authorities to proceed in accordance with law. The current notice concerns undisclosed cash loans amounting to Rs. 3,55,00,000.
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 the petitioner's contentions regarding the absence of a specific amount in the notice and his name not being explicitly mentioned in the search proceedings. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 153C was invalid because it did not specify the disputed amount and the petitioner's name was not mentioned in the search proceedings. The petitioner relied on the fact that previous proceedings under Section 148 were quashed. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the satisfaction note clearly indicated that documents pertaining to the petitioner, including details of cash loans, were found during the search related to Ramesh Chand Maheshwari. The revenue also pointed out that the High Court had previously granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law, implying that grounds of limitation would not arise.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
[2025:RJ-JP:32717-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11539/2025 Dinesh Kumar Khatoria S/o Late Shri Damodar Lal Khatoria, Age 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) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain and Mr. Meyhul Mittal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 20/08/2025 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 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.
[2025:RJ-JP:32717-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-11539/2025] 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. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J GAURAV/AVINASH/31
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026