TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is return of income for the assessment year 2021-22 on 10.03.2022 declaring total income at Rs. 99,65,040/-. The petitioner, along with joint purchasers Shri Gauravbhai Santarambhai and Shri Tarunbhai Santarambhai, purchased land at Moje Adalaj bearing Survey No. 184 and Survey No. 182 from Shri Shakarbhai Dhulabhai Patel and Shri Manthan Shakarbhai Patel vide registered sale deed dated 01.03.2021 for a consideration of Rs. 93,00,000/- and Rs. 63,00,000/- respectively. 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 18.06.2020 was found in respect of land at Moje Adalaj. On the basis of the said information, the Respondent recorded a satisfaction note on 18.03.2025 which was approved by the Principal Commissioner of Income Ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me appearing in the seized inquiry register is "Krupeshbhai Gajipara" - a person entirely unconnected to and unknown by the petitioner. Strikingly, no inquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the Department from Krupeshbhai Gajipara, 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. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate has placed reliance on the judgment and order dated 24.11.2025 passed in Sandhya Maulik Patel v. Asstt. CIT [2025] 181 taxmann.com 123 (Gujarat), Naliniben Jagdishkumar Gandhi v. ITO [2025] 183 taxmann.com 126 (Gujarat) and Deepak Chinubhai Shah v. Dy. CIT (Special Civil Application No. 13298 of 2025) and allied matters. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT: 6. While opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Aaditya D Bhatt, appearing for respondent-revenue, has contended that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 or pertaining to the assessee's income is sufficient to invoke the reopening jurisdiction. ANALYSIS AND OPINION: 7. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at length and have also perused the documents placed on record. The action of reopening of assessment against the petitioner is premised on a search conducted at the office premises of City Estate Management India on 28.09.2021. During the search, inquiry registers of b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....im. 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 the inquiry register entries as conclusive evidence of on-money transactions involving the petitioner. 10. We further note that the register entry pertains to five survey numbers, viz., Survey Nos. 182, 183, 184, 189 and 190, with a total area of 8.34 bigha. However, the petitioner along with co-purchasers purchased only Survey Nos. 184 and 182, having areas of 2.38 bigha and 1.62 bigha respectively, i.e., a combined area of approximately 4 bigha. The reg....