Late Prem Chand Dhandia Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

[2026:RJ-JP:6100-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2569/2026

Late Prem Chand Dhandia, Aged About 63 Years, Through Legal Heir Late Smt Indra Kumari Dhandia Through Legal Heir Shri Rajiv Dhandia Resident Of Room No-Ii, C-56, Garden House, Mahaveer Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Authorised Signatory Shri Mohan Singh Chauhan, S/o Shri Budh Singh Chauhan, R/o 101A, Rameshwar Dham, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur-302039.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur Having Its Address At 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Satwika Jha for
	Mr. Siddharth Ranka
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Siddharth Bapna with
	Ms. Tanushka Saxena

¶10

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

10/02/2026

¶13

Issue notice to the respondent.

¶14

Mr. Siddharth Bapna, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent.

¶15

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “ Pramod

¶16

Jain vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ” ( D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18359/2025 ) alongwith other connected cases decided on 27.01.2026, had directed as under:

¶17

“2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the present matters is under

(2 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:6100-DB]

[CW-2569/2026]

consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Siddharth

¶22

Totuka Vs.Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

¶23

Central Circle in SLP No. 31711/2025 , in which the

¶24

following order was passed on08.12.2025:

¶25

“1.Issue notice.

¶26

2.Dasti service, in addition, is permitted.

¶27

3.Tag with SLP(C) No. 33392 of 2025.

¶28

4.In the meantime, the proceedings before

¶29

the Adjudicating Authority shall remain stayed insofar as Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is concerned including the order impugned passed by the High Court.”

¶30

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, insofar as they pertain to Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including the impugned order under consideration before this Hon’ble Court in the present case, have been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It is, therefore, prayed that similar protection be extended in the present petitions as well. Learned counsel further fairly submits that the outcome of these petitions shall be governed by the outcome of the said SLP and, thus, subject to such outcome, the petitions may be disposed of while extending the aforesaid protection.

¶31

4. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court shall be duly followed. He further submits that in the event these petitions are disposed of, the same may be made subject to the final outcome of the aforesaid SLP.

¶32

5. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, this Court is of the clear opinion that once the narrow compass of the issue is being directly adjudicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in pursuance of the litigation undergone by the parties pertaining to Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petitions by extending the same protection as granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶33

6. Accordingly, it is directed that the Adjudicating Authority shall not proceed with any proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the petitioners, as also consequential order(s), if any,

(3 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:6100-DB]

[CW-2569/2026]

including giving effect to any impugned orders, for so long as the interim protection granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court continues to operate. The outcome of SLP No. 31711/2025 (tagged with SLP(C) No. 33392/2025) shall govern the outcome of the present petitions.

¶38

7. The instant writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.”

¶39

Considering the nature of controversy raised in the present petition which is identical to the aforesaid cases, both the learned counsel are ad idem that the present petition be also disposed of accordingly.

¶40

Keeping in view the above, the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of order dated 27.01.2026 passed in the case of Pramod Jain (supra). The observations/directions therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case.

¶41

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶42

(SANGEETA SHARMA),J

¶43

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ

¶44

RIYA/2

Late Prem Chand Dhandia v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Late Prem Chand Dhandia v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohitash Dhangar S/O Shri Hardevaram Vs Indra Dudi W/O Shri Sahi Ram

State of Rajasthan Vs M/S Ankit Construction

K.P. Exports Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax