RAJENDRAKUMAR SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL vs OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/11068/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240544922026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11068 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
===================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
===================================================
RAJENDRAKUMAR SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL
Versus
OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1)(1),
AHMEDABAD
===================================================
Appearance:
MR. JAIMIN R DAVE(7022) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MANVI A DAMLE(10805) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. AADITYA D BHATT(8580) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 23/10/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI)
1. Heard Mr.Jaimin R. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.Aaditya D. Bhatt, learned Senior Standing
Counsel appearing for the Revenue.
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:09 IST 2026
C/SCA/11068/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240544922026)
2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner herein has
invoked Article-226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the
order dated 18.06.2026 passed by the respondent under Section
148A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’),
disposing of the objections raised by the petitioner against
reopening of the assessment for Assessment Year (for short ‘A.Y.’)
2020-21, mainly on the following grounds:
(I) The Hindu Un-divided Family (for short ‘HUF’) has not
purchased any property for a consideration of Rs.1,05,00,000/-
during A.Y. 2021-21. Therefore, the very basis of re-opening is
factually incorrect and baseless.
(II) The HUF had purchased property of Rs.50,00,000/- during
A.Y. 2020-21. The amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was added to the
income of the HUF since it was not in a position to indicate the
source of funds. The HUF had preferred an appeal against such
addition which is pending adjudication. Hence, the same income
cannot be added to the hands of the petitioner once it is added
to the income of HUF holding separate PAN.
(III) It is submitted that contribution made to Sardar Vallabhbhai
Patel Party, a Registered Unrecognized Political Party [herein
after referred to as "RUPP"] cannot be considered as bogus
donation since all the payments made towards donation to RUPP
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:09 IST 2026
C/SCA/11068/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240544922026)
was through crossed account payee cheques and through proper
banking channel. Furthermore, the petitioner has also obtained
receipt from RUPP with respect to such donations.
3. Mr.Dave, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner filed return of income for A.Y. 2020-21,
declaring total income of Rs.19,09,870/- on 24.12.2020. The
petitioner herein is subjected to audit, and hence, return of
income was filed alongwith the audit report, wherein, the
petitioner duly disclosed all the material facts with respect to
donation to the RUPP. It is submitted that the impugned order is
required to be quashed and set aside on the sole ground that the
respondent herein failed to provide copy of dissemination note -
SVPP or Excel sheet with file name SVPP-2.xlsx alongwith show
cause notice, which is in complete violation of the principles of
natural justice. The respondent herein ought to have supplied the
material relied upon, while issuing the show cause notice.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner herein explained the details
in the objections to the show cause notice issued under Section
148A(1) of the Act dated 29.03.2026, vide reply on 10.04.2026,
wherein, the petitioner herein categorically clarified that the HUF
has not purchased any property for a consideration of
Rs.1,05,00,000/- during A.Y. 2020-21. That the HUF had
purchased the property of Rs.50,00,0000/- during A.Y. 2020-21.
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:09 IST 2026
C/SCA/11068/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240544922026)
The amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was added to the income of HUF,
since HUF was not in a position to indicate the source of funds.
The HUF has preferred Appeal against such addition, which is
pending adjudication. Hence, the same income cannot be added
to the hands of petitioner, once it is added to the income of
HUF holding a separate PAN.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioner also produced the
books of accounts being subject to tax audit and audited financial
forming part of Income Tax Return (for short ‘ITR’) and disclosed
in return, it cannot be reckoned as escapement of income
chargeable to tax to the extent of Rs.1,05,00,000/-. It is
submitted that the respondent has failed to consider the aforesaid
objections raised by the petitioner to the show cause notice. In
view thereof also, the impugned order is required to be quashed
and set aside.
6. Mr.Dave, the learned advocate, relying on the affidavit-in-
reply, more particularly Paragraph-19, filed by the Revenue,
states that the Revenue has not disputed with regard to the non-
supply of the raw Excel database or dissemination note under
Section 148A(1) of the Act.
7.Mr.Aaditya Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel also relies
on the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Revenue and submits that
the matter be remanded back from the stage of show cause
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:09 IST 2026
C/SCA/11068/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240544922026)
notice under Section 148A(1) of the Act, directing the Assessing
Officer to supply the copy of dissemination note and relevant
Excel sheet to the petitioner and allow the petitioner to file a
fresh reply, and thereafter a fresh order under Section 148A(3) of
the Act in accordance with law would be passed.
8. In our considered opinion, in the facts of the present case, the
respondent–Revenue having admitted that the relevant
documents, i.e. the raw Excel database sheet and dissemination
note, as required under Section 148A(1) of the Act, at the time
of issuance of show cause notice are not supplied to the
petitioner, is in gross violation of the principles of natural
justice. At this stage, we deem it fit to reproduce Paragraph-19
of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, which reads
thus:
“19. Without prejudice to any of the above submissions on
merits and maintainability, it is respectfully submitted that if
this Hon'ble Court is inclined to accept the Petitioner's
contention regarding the non-supply of the raw excel database
sheet or dissemination note under Section 148A(1), the interest
of public revenue involving escaped income of over
Rs.1,08,00,000/-should be protected. In such an event, instead
of quashing the entire reassessment proceedings, this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to remand the matter back to the stage
of Section 148A(1) show-cause notice, directing the Assessing
Officer to supply the copy of the dissemination note and the
relevant excel sheet to the Petitioner, and allow the Petitioner
to file a fresh reply, as held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court
in the case of Champion Exim Co. vs. Assessing Officer (Gujarat
High Court, 2026), the Bombay High Court Anurag Gupta v.
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:09 IST 2026
C/SCA/11068/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/10/2026
(GJHC240544922026)
ITO (2023), and the Delhi High Court in Balesh Jain Sons HUF
v. ACIT (2022). This would protect the public revenue from
escaping tax on purely technical procedural grounds.”
9. Considering the aforesaid, show cause notice dated 18.06.2026
and the order dated dated 18.06.2026 are hereby quashed and set
aside. The present Petition stands allowed. The matter is
remanded back at the stage of issuance of notice under Section
148A(1) of the Act. The respondent is directed to supply the
relevant documents within a period of two weeks from the
receipt of the copy of the order. Upon receipt of such
documents, the petitioner herein to file a reply within a period
of two weeks and a final order be passed by the respondent
within a period of 12 weeks thereafter. Direct service is
permitted.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
Pradhyuman/11
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by PRADHYUMANSINH D. RAHEVAR(HC01408) on Tue Oct 27 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 27 16:01:09 IST 2026