TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1636
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment year 2021-22 on 23.12.2021 declaring total income/(loss) at (Rs. 64,05,030/-). The petitioner purchased land bearing Survey No. 756/1+2 situated at Village Nidhrad from Shri Shaileshbhai Shambhubhai, Shri Sunilbhai Mansukhbhai, Shri Ashwinibhai Harshadbhai Desai and Smt. Sudhaben Sureshbhai Desai vide registered sale deed dated 26.02.2021 for a consideration of Rs. 38,22,068/-. A search action under Section 132 of the IT Act was conducted on 28.09.2021 at the premises of B Safal Group and City Estate Management India, a real estate broker providing brokerage services to the B Safal Group. During the course of the search, inquiry registers were found and seized from the premises of City Estate Management India containing details of various lands and plots in and around Ahmedabad along with their survey numbers, area and asking rates. In one of such inquiry registers, a noting dated 10.03.2019 was found in respect of land at Village Nidhrad bearing Survey Nos. 753/1+2+3 and 756/1+2. On the basis of the said information, the Respondent recorded a satisfaction note on 15.03.2025 which was approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad on 21.03.2025. Thereafte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egister entry thus covers an additional group of survey numbers (753/1+2+3) and refers to an area approximately five times larger than the area of the land actually purchased by the petitioner. This substantial discrepancy in both the survey numbers covered and the total area further militates against any nexus between the seized document and the petitioner's transaction. 4.2 It is submitted that the name appearing in the seized inquiry register is "Bro. Manish Bopal" - a person entirely unconnected to and unknown by the petitioner. The petitioner's name is nowhere to be found in the seized register. No inquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the Department from Manish Bopal, whose name actually appears in the register. Furthermore, neither the seized inquiry register nor the statement of Shri Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya recorded under Section 131 of the Act makes any reference to the petitioner or the joint sellers. The jurisdictional condition that the seized material must "pertain to" or "relate to" the assessee is not satisfied in the present case. 5. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the judgment and order date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me has been met in the present case. The deletion of an addition in the hands of the broker by the Tribunal does not obliterate the information against the actual buyer. It is, therefore, urged that the present writ petition may be dismissed. 6.3 It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent that the action of reopening is well-supported by the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Reliance is placed on Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC), wherein it was held that at the stage of issuance of notice under Section 148, the Court is not required to go into the merits of the matter, and whether income had or had not escaped assessment is not the relevant consideration at that stage. Reliance is also placed on CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) and Anshul Jain v. PCIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 38 (SC). It is further submitted that the expression 'pertains to' or 'relates to' as employed in Explanation 2(iv) to Section 148 is wider in amplitude than the expression 'belongs to' as used in Section 153C; therefore, the seized document need not directly belong to the assessee -a mere relation to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... executed by the petitioner. 9.1 We find that, even on the question of the evidentiary weight to be attached to the seized inquiry register, the revenue's case is materially weakened by the admissions made by Shri Bavadiya himself during his statement recorded in the course of the search. At Question No. 14, Shri Bavadiya candidly admitted that sometimes clients come with land documents or title deeds and these belonged to the clients and not to him. This admission directly and significantly undermines the blanket presumption under Section 292C that all entries in the inquiry register necessarily record actual financial transactions carried out by or through Shri Bavadiya. Further, at Question No. 26, it emerges that the 'owner of the land' is typically the person whose name is entered in the register-confirming that the name reflected therein is that of the owner or broker who listed the property, and not necessarily a party who paid or received any undisclosed consideration. These specific admissions by the searched person himself effectively negate the foundation upon which the revenue has sought to invoke a generalised presumption under Section 292C to treat t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. ITO [2026] 183 taxmann.com 126 (Gujarat). In the case of Naliniben Jagdishkumar Gandhi, this Court has, after considering a similar entry in the same inquiry register seized in the same search, held as follows: "Except the seized documents as mentioned herein-above, and the statements of the searched person Shri Bavadiya, there is no material recorded by the Assessing Officer which would reveal the name of the petitioner. It is true that cash transactions operate in very clandestine manner, and the reassessment cannot be quashed, but the revenue has to prove a live link connecting the assessee. The only link is the survey number of the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the date of the seized document referred is of 11.08.2017 and it is the case of the Assessing Officer that the entire plot of land was sought to be sold at the rate of Rs. 17,000/- per square yard in the year 2017 as per the entry made in the register (seized document)." In the present case, similarly, the sole link attempted by the revenue is the survey number of the petitioner. The register entry, however, covers multiple survey numbers and a vastly larger area than what the petitioner transac....