Goverdhan Das Maheshwari v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Central Revenuebuilding, Janpath, Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2305/2020 Goverdhan Das Maheshwari S/o Late Shri Gopal Lal Maheshwari,319, Gopalji Ka Rasta, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Central RevenueBuilding, Janpath, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dileep Shivpuri with Mr. Utkarsh SharmaMr. Utkarsh SharmaFor Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Bapna Ms. Kriti KalawatiaMs. Kriti Kalawatia HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 30/07/2024 1.Heard. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that theissue raised in this petition is no longer res-Integra and standsconcluded under a common order passed by a Coordinate Benchof this court on 19.03.2024 in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18363/2019) and connected petitions. 3.Learned counsel for the parties brings to the notice of thisCourt that an appeal has already been filed against theassessment order which was passed later on. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner makes an emphaticstatement at the bar that the appeal is still pending and no ordershave been passed in that appeal. 5.It is the case of the petitioner that where the basis forreopening is not material independent of a search but based onmaterial collected during search, reopening would be permissibleonly in accordance with the provisions of Section 153-C andrecourse could not be had to Section 148 of Income Tax Act. 6.The aforesaid issue has been considered and decided by aCoordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shyam SunderKhandelwal (supra). 7.It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that presentcase is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench inSiddarth Totuka Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (SBCivil Writ Petition No. 14714/2019). 8.The fact that the present case is covered by the judgment inSiddarth Totuka (supra) is not disputed by counsel for therespondent. 9.In view of the above, we deem it proper to allow the writpetition and the notice as well as all consequential orders includingorders of assessment are set aside. The petitioner shall submit acopy of this order before the Appellate Authority for closure of theappeal case. 10.Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J ashu /22