2026 (5) TMI 187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndent. 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned jurisdictional notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") for Assessment Year 2020-21, as well as the impugned reassessment order passed under Section 147 of the Act, bearing DIN and Order No. ITBA/AST/S/147/2025-26/1086578924(1) dated 25.02.2026, and the impugned penalty notice issued under Section 271DA of the Act, bearing DIN and Order No. ITBA/PNL/S/271DA/2025-26/1086589552(1) dated 26.02.2026. 3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Darshan B. Gandhi, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the case concerns a co-owner, namely Smt. Patel Muktaben Jadavbhai, whose name appears in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8. It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned notice was issued without the necessary satisfaction note or seized material from the searched party. Accordingly, vide letter dated 26.06.2025, the petitioner requested the respondent Assessing Officer to supply the same. However, without supplying such documents, the respondent Assessing Officer, vide letters dated 19.08.2025 and 25.09.2025, informed the petitioner that she had failed to comply with the statutory notice by not filing the return of income. 9. Thereafter, vide letter dated 07.11.2025, the respondent-Assessing Officer provided the reasons/satisfaction note for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. 10. Upon receipt of the detailed satisfaction ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s only required to examine prima facie material and therefore, the present petition ought not to be entertained. 13. From the pleadings and the documentary evidence on record, it emerges that the petitioner had sold the agricultural land vide sale deed dated 15.06.2019. The entire reopening is premised on a loose paper indicating the date 01.08.2020 and referring to Survey No.131 situated at Village - Medha, Taluka-District : Kadi-Mehsana. The Assessing Officer thereafter relied upon a verification in the nature of "Any ROR" with respect to the sale deed. 14. However, the fact remains that the petitioner sold the land when it had agricultural status, whereas the subsequent purchaser, on 05.08.2019, converted the said land ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... sale deed dated 07.10.2020 is an agricultural land. The name of the seller appears to be Sanjay Thakkar. Thus, there are three components which do not reconcile with the petitioner (i) the date mentioned as 22.04.2021, (ii) the status of the land being shown as "NA" i.e. non-agricultural and (iii) the name of the seller - Sanjay Thakkar. 13. The questions and answers forming part of the statements recorded under the provisions of 131 of the IT Act, in the case of one Shri Nagjibhai Bhavadiya, the searched person, does not in any manner mention the name of the petitioners. Thus, we do not find any direct or indirect link with the seized document and the same does not even remotely connect the rate mentioned of the concerned questio....