[2025:RJ-JP:41902-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15285/2022 Mahima Real Estate Private Limited, 8, Nikhil Apartment, 670, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Authorised Signatory Shri Dhirendra Madan, S/o Shri Dass Ram Madan, Aged About 63 Years, R/o B-22, Prabhu Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur 302004 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 4, Jaipur, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Jaipur, Ncr Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak with Mr. Aaditya Bohra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Mr. Shashwat Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 14/10/2025 1. The issue involved in the present petition is as to whether the reassessment proceedings initiated for assessment year 2016- 17 is barred by limitation and the matter is covered by decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Versus Rajeev Bansal (SC) 2024 INSC 754. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that issue has been dealt by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.08.2025 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14638/2022 and connected matters. The operational part of the order is reproduced below:- [2025:RJ-JP:41902-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-15285/2022] “8. In view of the above, the contentions raised before us are rejected. Further, it has also been brought to notice that in the recent judgments passed in the cases of Assistant Commissioner of Income tax Vs. Vikram Kapahi, reported in [2025] 170 taxmann.com 593 (SC), decided on 06.01.2025, Income Tax Officer Vs. Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya, reported in [2024] 168 taxmann.com 588 (SC) and Income Tax Officer Vs. Pradeep Himatlal Shah, reported in [2025] 170 taxmann.com 472 (SC), decided on 20.12.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also disposed of the Special Leave Petitoins in terms of the judgment passed in Rajeev Bansal (supra) with the observation that the Assessing Officer shall dispose of the petitions in terms of the law laid down therein.” 3. In view of the contentions raised above, the petition is disposed of in same terms. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/20