TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 571
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year 2022-23 on 17.12.2022 declaring total income at Rs. 4,45,21,400/-. The petitioner, along with joint purchasers Smt. Jadiben Manji, Smt. Kokilaben Manji, Smt. Bhartiben Manji, Shri Vijay Kevalji Thakor and Shri Ajay Kevalji Thakor, purchased land at Village Kaneti bearing Survey No. 31 from the joint sellers by registered sale deed dated 03.04.2021 for a total consideration of Rs. 73,82,700/-. 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 29.11.2018 was found in respect of land at Village Kaneti bearing Survey No. 31. On the basis of the said information, the Respondent recorded a satisfaction note on 28.03.2025 which was approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 on 29.03.2025. Thereafter, approval ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ginal sellers. The register entry thus covers an area considerably larger than that which was actually purchased by the petitioner, rendering any nexus between the seized document and the petitioner's transaction highly doubtful. 5.2 It is submitted that the name appearing in the seized inquiry register is "Sanjay Thakor" - a person entirely unconnected to and unknown by the petitioner. No inquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the Department from Sanjay Thakor, 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 co-purchasers. The jurisdictional condition that the seized material must "pertain to" or "relate to" the assessee is not satisfied in the present case. 5.3 It is further submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya v. DCIT [ITA Nos. 1688 to 1691/Ahd/2024 and ITA No. 1896/Ahd/2024, vide order dated 09.05.2025] - arising from the very same search conducted on 28.09.2021 and the very same inquiry registers - has directed deletio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to have information suggesting escapement of income. The discrepancy in dates, area and name are matters relating to the merits of the proposed addition and are to be adjudicated during the course of assessment proceedings. It is, therefore, urged that the present writ petition may be dismissed. 7.2 It is submitted that the Assessing Officer is not required to conclusively prove escapement of income at the stage of issuing notice under Section 148. The threshold is merely "information suggesting escapement" and the same has been met in the present case. The entry in the seized register reflecting a rate of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- per vigha for land bearing Survey No. 31 at Village Kaneti, as against the sale consideration of Rs. 73,82,700/- recorded in the sale deed, constitutes sufficient tangible material for invoking jurisdiction under Section 148 of the IT Act. 7.3 It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent that the action of reopening is well-supported by the pronouncements of the 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 is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sale in Village Kaneti as on that date. Notably, the statement of Shri Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya recorded under Section 131 of the IT Act himself confirms that the inquiry registers contain details of "land/plots available for sale at different locations near Ahmedabad". Since the purchase transaction by the petitioner was executed approximately twenty-eight months after the date of the register entry, the noting cannot be treated as a record of any transaction executed by the petitioner. Moreover, the register entry falls in the period of Assessment Year 2019-20 and is wholly incapable of imputing escapement of income for Assessment Year 2022- 23, which is the year sought to be reopened. 11. 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 pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....document, which does not in any manner relate to the present petitioner. 14. Even otherwise, this issue is no more res integra as the same is covered in favour of the assessee by the judgement of this Court in the case of Naliniben Jagdishkumar Gandhi v. ITO [2025] 183 taxmann.com 126 (Gujarat). This Court has, after considering a similar entry in the same customer 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 re-assessment 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." 15. The aforesaid principle applies with equal, if not greater, force to the present case, where not only is there no live link between the seized register entry and the petitioner's transaction, but the entry itself suffers from the multiple infirmities and internal contradictions noticed hereinabove. ....