Siddharth Totuka v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-04, Newcentral Revenue Building, Janpath, Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14363/2025 Siddharth Totuka S/o Late Shri Anil Kumar Totuka, Aged About51 Years, R/o D-32-B Malviya Marg C-Scheme Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-04, NewCentral Revenue Building, Janpath, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, Adv.Mr. Utkarsh Shara, 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 19/09/2025 Order 1.Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, learned counsel for the petitioner hasvehemently argued however, we refrain from changing our viewwhich we have already taken in the case of Vaibhav GlobalLimited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax:D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 12529/2025, wherein it held as under:- “1.This matter is related toDinesh Kumar Khatoria Vs. The Assistant Commissioner OfIncome Tax in compliance of which this Court haspassed the following order:- “1.The challenge in this petition is to thenotice issued to the petitioner under Section153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short,"IT Act) dated 04.02.2025 with regard toAssessment Year 2011-2012. 2.Learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that in the notice impugned, neitheramount has been mentioned nor in thesearch conducted name of the petitioner hasbeen mentioned, however, from the perusal of the satisfaction note for initiatingproceedings under Section 153C withreference to the petitioner for the year 2011-2012, as conveyed to the petitioner, it isapparent that Dinesh Kumar Khatoria'sdocuments were received in pen drive.Entries pertaining to Dinesh Kumar Khatoria,who paid cash loans to various persons, werefound during the search proceedings relatingto Ramesh Chand Maheshwari under Section131 of the IT Act. We also noticed that thepetitioner had earlier preferred the writpetition Nos.4490/2022 and 4635/2022before this Court challenging the noticeissued to him under Section 148 of the IT Actand this Court quashed the proceedingsunder Section 148 of the IT Act vide orderdated 19.03.2024, with liberty to theAuthorities to proceed against the writpetitioner in accordance with law. Since, thisCourt had granted permission to therespondent-Tax Authorities to proceed, thechallenge on the ground of limitation wouldalso not arise as the order was passed bythis Court granting liberty to the authoritiesto proceed. 3.In view thereto, the notice issued tothe petitioner with regard to undisclosed cashloans of an amount of Rs.3,55,00,000/-,which remains undisclosed, has to beanswered by the petitioner to the Authorities.We, therefore, do not find any reasons tointerfere with the notice issued to thepetitioner under Section 153C. The petitioneris free to take up all the necessaryarguments and defense available to himbefore the Authorities, who would berequired to pass an appropriate speakingorder. 4.With the said observations, the writpetition is dismissed accordingly. 5.Pending application(s), if any, alsostands disposed of.” 2.The notice of the petitioner is the consequence ofthe judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal & Ors. Vs. AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax & Ors.: reported in2024 (4) TMI 196 (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18363/2019) decided on 19.03.2024, where DivisionBench held as under:- 4.With the said observations, the writpetition is dismissed accordingly. 5.Pending application(s), if any, alsostands disposed of.” 2.The notice of the petitioner is the consequence ofthe judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal & Ors. Vs. AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax & Ors.: reported in2024 (4) TMI 196 (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18363/2019) decided on 19.03.2024, where DivisionBench held as under:- “40. In view of above discussion the noticesissued under Section 148 and the impugnedorders are quashed. However, therespondents shall be at liberty to proceedagainst the petitioners in accordance withlaw.”issued under Section 148 and the impugnedorders are quashed. However, therespondents shall be at liberty to proceedagainst the petitioners in accordance withlaw.” 3.It is noticed that the said judgment was assailedbefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the meanwhile taking cue from the observations made byDivision Bench, the Revenue has initiated proceedingsunder Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961) against thepetitioner. Since we find that so far as in the earlierwrit petitions observations were accepted by theassessee, the notice issued to the petitioner forundisclosed income, as revealed while conductingsearch of another person, and there being asatisfaction note which has been made a basis forinitiating proceedings under Section 153C of the Act of1961, we are not inclined in any manner to interferewith the action, as taken by the Revenue. 4.With the aforesaid observations, the present civilwrit petition is dismissed. However, all the grounds areopen for the petitioner to be taken up before theauthorities. 5.All pending application(s), if any, stand disposedof.” 2.Keeping in view the judgment passed by this Court inVaibhav Global Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax, the present Civil Writ Petition is dismissed, mutatismutandis. 3.All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J HEENA/MAHIMA/36