[2025:RJ-JP:6904-DB] 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. Sushila Devi Modi Resident Of 201, Nemi Sagar Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur- 302006. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Jaipur, Having Its Address At 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. 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi, Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Siddharth Ranka (through V.C.) with Ms.Apeksha Bapna & Mr.Rohan Chatter For 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 MATHUR Order 17/02/2025 1. This petition is filed challenging the assessment order dated 30.05.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. Inter alia the issue raised is with regard to the proceedings being time barred and as to whether the instructions issued by the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain [2025:RJ-JP:6904-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-7820/2023] Provisions) Act, 2020 would come to the rescue of the department or not. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Seahorse Mercantile Company Private Limited vs. Officer of the Income Tax Officer & Ors. (SLP (C) No.25288/2023) decided on 28.11.2024, seeks limited relief that the impugned order be quashed and the department be directed to pass the order afresh after considering the objections raised by the petitioner in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India and others vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 I.T.R. 46. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent though defends the impugned order, however is not in a position to distinguish this case with the citations relied upon. 5. In view of the above, the order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Act dated 30.05.2023 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent No.1 to pass the order afresh after dealing with the objections raised by the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed. 6. In order to avoid further delay, let petitioner through his representative appear in the office of the respondent No.1 on 17.03.2025 at 11:00 A.M. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Riya/50