Siddharth Totuka Vs ACIT (Rajasthan High Court)
Summary: Rajasthan High Court dismissed Siddharth Totuka’s writ petition challenging proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following its earlier decision in Vaibhav Global Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court noted that the Section 153C action had its background in the Division Bench judgment in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal & Ors. Vs ACIT & Ors., decided on 19 March 2024, wherein earlier Section 148 notices and orders had been quashed while expressly granting liberty to the Revenue to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. Taking cue from that liberty, the Revenue subsequently initiated Section 153C proceedings.
Read SC Judgment in this case: Supreme Court Stays Section 153C Proceedings in Siddharth Totuka Case
The High Court observed that the notice concerned undisclosed income revealed during a search of another person and that a satisfaction note formed the basis for initiation of Section 153C proceedings. It therefore declined to interfere with the Revenue’s action. The Court reproduced its reasoning in Vaibhav Global Limited, where a similar limitation challenge was rejected because the earlier judgment had granted liberty to the tax authorities to proceed, and the assessee was directed to raise available arguments and defences before the authorities. Applying Vaibhav Global Limited mutatis mutandis, the Court dismissed Siddharth Totuka’s writ petition while leaving all grounds open to be urged before the authorities.
Cases Discussed
1. Vaibhav Global Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax — D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12529/2025 (Rajasthan High Court) — Followed. The High Court expressly declined to change the view taken in Vaibhav Global Limited and ultimately dismissed Siddharth Totuka’s petition mutatis mutandis following that judgment.
2. Dinesh Kumar Khatoria Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Rajasthan High Court) — Discussed through Vaibhav Global Limited. In the reproduced portion of Vaibhav Global Limited, the Court considered a Section 153C notice relating to alleged undisclosed cash loans of Rs.3,55,00,000 and held that the assessee should answer the notice before the authorities, where all available arguments and defences could be raised.
3. Shyam Sunder Khandelwal & Ors. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. — 2024 (4) TMI 196, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019, decided on 19.03.2024 (Rajasthan High Court) — Discussed/Applied as background to subsequent Section 153C proceedings. The Division Bench had quashed Section 148 notices and impugned orders but expressly granted liberty to the Revenue to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. The Revenue thereafter initiated Section 153C proceedings relying upon that liberty.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued however, we refrain from changing our view which we have already taken in the case of Vaibhav Global Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12529/2025, wherein it held as under:-
“1. This matter is related to Dinesh Kumar Khatoria Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax in compliance of which this Court has passed the following order:-
“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. 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.”
2. The notice of the petitioner is the consequence of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal & Ors. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.: reported in 2024 (4) TMI 196 (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019) decided on 19.03.2024, where Division Bench held as under:-
“40. In view of above discussion the notices issued under Section 148 and the impugned orders are quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.”
3. It is noticed that the said judgment was assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the meanwhile taking cue from the observations made by Division Bench, the Revenue has initiated proceedings under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961) against the petitioner. Since we find that so far as in the earlier writ petitions observations were accepted by the assessee, the notice issued to the petitioner for undisclosed income, as revealed while conducting search of another person, and there being a satisfaction note which has been made a basis for initiating proceedings under Section 153C of the Act of 1961, we are not inclined in any manner to interfere with the action, as taken by the Revenue.
4. With the aforesaid observations, the present civil writ petition is dismissed. However, all the grounds are open for the petitioner to be taken up before the authorities.
5. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.”
2. Keeping in view the judgment passed by this Court in Vaibhav Global Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the present Civil Writ Petition is dismissed, mutatis mutandis.
3. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
