TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1823
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 29.03.2026 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") seeking to re-open income tax assessment of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2022-23 (for short "the assessment year under consideration") by the Respondent-Income Tax Officer, Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad (for short "the respondent"). BRIEF FACTS: 4.1. The petitioner in the ordinary course of its business, filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2022-23 declaring income of Rs. 12,54,030/-. The said return was processed in accordance with law. The petitioner purchased immovable properties situated at Moje Santej (Survey Nos.1448, 1445 and 1447/7) from the vendor Smt. Naiyabahen Dipakkumar Thakkar by a registered sale deed (Document No.12699) dated 21.09.2021, for the consideration recorded therein. A search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act was conducted on 28.09.2021 at the premises of 'B Safal Group' and 'City Estate Group', namely City Estate Management India and M/s. City Procon Realtors Pvt. Ltd., 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 prem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally 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 Thakkar" - a person entirely unconnected to and unknown by the petitioner. Strikingly, no inquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the respondent from Sanjay Thakkar, 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 petitioner specifically referred to the answer to question no.14 and 28 of Shri Bavadiya wherein, he had not committed about his role in the purchase of this property for the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate of the petitioner that the petitioner had not availed services of either city management or Pravin Bavadiya nor retained them for and on his behalf for purchase of the said land nor any commission was paid or claimed by the said party towards the purchase of this land. Thus, the jurisdictional condition that the seized mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....capement of income. The exact match between the survey numbers in the seized register and the registered sale deed of the petitioner constitutes sufficient material for invoking jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act. 6.2. It is further submitted that the discrepancies in dates, area, and names are all matters relating to the merits of the proposed addition and are to be adjudicated during the course of the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer is not required to conclusively prove escapement of income at the stage of issuing the notice; the threshold is merely "information suggesting escapement" and the same 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 that the action of reopening is well-supported by the pronouncements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Reliance is placed on Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. vs. ITO, [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC), wherein it was held that at the stage of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act, the Court is not required ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 21.09.2021 - i.e., approximately five months after the date of the noting. The entry in the register, therefore, predates the actual purchase transaction of the petitioner by a considerable period. In this background, the entry dated 22.04.2021 can, at best, be viewed as a market survey reflecting the asking rate for land available for sale in the area of Moje Santej as on that date. Notably, the statement of Shri Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya recorded under Section 131 of the 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 five months after the date of the register entry, and since the register is admittedly only a record of land "available for sale", the noting cannot be treated as a record of any transaction executed by the petitioner. 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, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld: "10. 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. 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)." 14. 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. 15. We find further support in two recent decisions of this Court arising from the very same search. In the case of Trupti Aa....