Late Jagdish Prasad Modi, Through His Legal Heir Smt. Sushiladevi Modi Resident Of v. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7820/2023 Late Jagdish Prasad Modi, Through His Legal Heir Smt. SushilaDevi Modi Resident Of 201, Nemi Sagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar,Jaipur- 302006. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jaipur, Having Its AddressAt New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road,Jaipur- 302005At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road,Jaipur- 302005 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Jaipur,Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building,Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur- 302005.Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building,Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur- 302005. 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue,Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having ItsAddress At North Block, New Delhi, Through ItsChairman.Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having ItsAddress At North Block, New Delhi, Through ItsChairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Siddharth Ranka (through V.C.) with Ms.Apeksha Bapna &Mr.Rohan ChatterFor Respondent(s): Mr.Anuroop Singhi with Mr.N.S. Bhati &Mr.Aditya Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUROrder 17/02/2025 1.This petition is filed challenging the assessment order dated30.05.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2.Inter alia the issue raised is with regard to the proceedingsbeing time barred and as to whether the instructions issued by theTaxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 would come to the rescue of the departmentor not. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decisionof the Supreme Court in the case of Seahorse MercantileCompany Private Limited vs. Officer of the Income TaxOfficer & Ors.(SLP (C) No.25288/2023) decided on28.11.2024, seeks limited relief that the impugned order bequashed and the department be directed to pass the order afreshafter considering the objections raised by the petitioner in view ofthe judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Union of Indiaand others vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 I.T.R.46. 4.Learned counsel for the respondent though defends theimpugned order, however is not in a position to distinguish thiscase with the citations relied upon. 5.In view of the above, the order passed under Section 147read with Section 144 of the Act dated 30.05.2023 is quashed.The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to pass the orderafresh after dealing with the objections raised by the petitioner.The writ petition is allowed. 6.In order to avoid further delay, let petitioner through hisrepresentative appear in the office of the respondent No.1 on17.03.2025 at 11:00 A.M. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Riya/50