[2026:RJ-JP:1444-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14006/2022 Murari Lal Singhal S/o Sh. Dwarka Prasad Singhal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 02, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Tonk - 304001, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward Tonk, Malpura Gate, Kala Baba, Tonk Rajasthan - 304001 2. Union of India, Through Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Keshav Khandelwal for Mr. Jaideep Malik For Respondent(s) : Ms. Dhairya Agarwal with Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 13/01/2026 1. Both the learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issue raised in the present writ petition would be governed by the order passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14638/2022 titled as “Rajesh Sharma versus Income Tax Officer & Anr.” and other connected writ petitions decided on 21.08.2025 wherein this Court directed as under:- “5. We accordingly direct the revenue to examine each and every case relating to the deemed notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, in light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal's case (supra) and reach to a conclusion, as to whether the proceedings would fall within the limitation or have become time barred in terms [2026:RJ-JP:1444-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-14006/2022] of sub-para F, G & H of paragraph No.114 (supra). 6. While examining the cases, the example as mentioned by the Apex Court in its judgment in Rajeev Bansal’s case (supra) in paragraph No.112 and observations made in paragraph Nos.110 and 111, shall also be taken into consideration. Cases, which fall less than the value of Rs.50,00,000/- would have to be dropped keeping in view the stand taken by the revenue before the Apex Court, as observed in paragraph No.53. 7. The aforesaid exercise shall be conducted by the concerned competent Officer of the Department expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months without any further delay. The decision shall be conveyed to the assessee in terms of the faceless regime by the concerned Officer keeping in view the provision of Section 144-B of the Act. 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 Petitions 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. 9. We order accordingly. All the petitions stand disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 10. If any of the petitioner/assessee is still aggrieved of the order passed, remedy in terms of the provision of the Act can be availed by him. 11. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file. D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.16013/2022, 16144/2022 & 16705/2022:- 1.In view of the decision which has been taken in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14638/2022 and other connected matters (supra), we hold that in cases where the assessee have gone in the appeal against the final assessment order, the said appeals would stand decided in view of the [2026:RJ-JP:1444-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-14006/2022] observations and findings arrived at hereinabove. The writ petitions are disposed of, accordingly. 2.A copy of this order be placed in the above three writ petitions.” 2. Keeping in view thereto, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of order dated 21.08.2025 passed in the case of Rajesh Sharma (supra). The observations/directions therein shall apply mutatis mutandis in the present case. 3. All pending application(s) stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ KAVISH /73