VINOD PARSOTAM RABARA vs INCOME TAX OFFIER WARD 3(1)(1), RAJKOT

C/SCA/6600/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6600 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI Sd/-
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No

=============================================
VINOD PARSOTAM RABARA
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFIER WARD 3(1)(1), RAJKOT & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AADITYA BHATT, FOR
MR MAUNIL G YAJNIK(9346) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

Date : 06/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing
Counsel Mr. Aaditya D. Bhatt waives service of notice of rule on
behalf of the respondent.
2. Since a short issue is involved, with consent of learned
advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for
final hearing.
3. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner is assailing
the impugned notice dated 20.06.2025 issued under Section
148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the IT Act") for the
assessment year 2022-23.
Page 1 of 12
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:06:16 IST 2026

C/SCA/6600/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
BRIEF FACTS:
4. The petitioner filed his return of income for the
assessment 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 under Section 151 of the IT Act was
granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1
on 01.05.2025. The Respondent thereafter issued the
impugned notice dated 20.06.2025 under Section 148 of the IT
Act, alleging that the petitioner had paid on-money of Rs.
4,88,97,300/- on account of purchase of land bearing Survey
No.31 at Village Kaneti, being the difference between the
Page 2 of 12
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:06:16 IST 2026

C/SCA/6600/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
consideration recorded in the Sale Deed and the price quoted
in the inquiry register noting dated 29.11.2018. The petitioner
filed a return of income in response to the said notice on
21.07.2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court
by way of the present writ petition.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Tushar Hemani has
submitted that the Assessing Officer has sought to reopen the
assessment only on the basis of a noting found in the seized
inquiry register and the statement of Shri Pravin Nagjibhai
Bavadiya, the broker and proprietor of City Estate
Management India. It is submitted that the relevant noting in
the seized inquiry register is dated 29.11.2018, whereas the
petitioner along with co-purchasers actually purchased the
concerned land bearing Survey No. 31 at Village Kaneti by
registered sale deed dated 03.04.2021 – i.e., approximately
twenty-eight months after the date of the noting. The noting,
therefore, predates the actual purchase transaction of the
petitioner by a very considerable period and, as per the
statement of Shri Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya himself recorded
under Section 131 of the IT Act on 27.12.2021, the inquiry
registers merely contain details of "land/plots available for sale
at different locations near Ahmedabad" and do not record any
concluded transaction or parties thereto. Furthermore, the land
bearing Survey No. 31 at Village Kaneti was categorised as
agricultural land as on the date of the noting, and accordingly
the rate stated in the seized document is in the nature of an
aspirational or indicative asking rate and nothing more.
Page 3 of 12
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:06:16 IST 2026

C/SCA/6600/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
5.1 It is further submitted that the register entry covers the
entire land bearing Survey No. 31 admeasuring 11,152 sq. mtr.
(4.69 vigha), whereas the petitioner along with co-purchasers
purchased only a portion thereof by the registered sale deed
dated 03.04.2021, and the remaining 2,025 sq. mtr. of the said
land continues to remain under the ownership of the original
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 deletion of the entire
addition made on the basis of the inquiry registers, holding
Page 4 of 12
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:06:16 IST 2026

C/SCA/6600/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
that no additions can be made on conjectures and surmises
where no corroborative evidence is found to show that the
assessee actually earned income from transactions mentioned
in the register. When the inquiry registers have been held to
be wholly unreliable and incapable of supporting any addition
even in the hands of the broker himself, the same documents
cannot be employed against a third party such as the present
petitioner in the absence of any live and direct nexus.
6. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior
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:
7. While opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior
Standing Counsel Mr.Aaditya D. Bhatt, appearing for
respondent-revenue, has contended that from the search
conducted on B Safal Group and City Estate Management India
on 28.09.2021, inquiry registers were seized from broker Shri
Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya. These registers are not mere dumb
documents but are structured business records of a
professional real estate broker, systematically maintained with
precise survey numbers, village locations, area measurements
and rates. In his statement recorded on oath under Section
131 of the IT Act on 27.12.2021, the broker admitted
ownership of these registers and confirmed that they belong to
Page 5 of 12
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:06:16 IST 2026

C/SCA/6600/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
his business, thereby activating the statutory presumption of
truthfulness under Sections 132(4A) and 292C of the Act.
7.1 It is further submitted that on verification of revenue
records through the AnyROR portal, it was found that the land
bearing Survey No. 31 at Village Kaneti, as recorded in the
seized inquiry register, was purchased by the petitioner along
with co-purchasers on 03.04.2021. The asset-based nexus
between the seized document and the petitioner's transaction
is thus established through the exact survey number match.
Under Explanation 2(iv) to Section 148 of the IT Act, when
documents seized from any other person "pertain to" or
information contained therein "relates to" 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.
Page 6 of 12
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:06:16 IST 2026

C/SCA/6600/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
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 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:
8. 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
broker Shri Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya were seized. The
relevant extract of the seized inquiry register which forms the
sole basis for the impugned notice reads as under:
29/11/18 | Village: Kaneti | S. No. 31 | 4.69 Bigha |
Rate – Rs. 1,20,00,000/- per Bigha | Sanjay Thakor
Page 7 of 12
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:06:16 IST 2026

C/SCA/6600/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
9. On the basis of the aforesaid entry in the seized inquiry
register, the Assessing Officer formed the opinion that the
petitioner had paid on-money of Rs. 4,88,97,300/- on the
purchase of land bearing Survey No. 31 at Village Kaneti and
accordingly sought to reopen the assessment year 2022-23.
10. The first and foremost aspect which strikes us on a
perusal of the seized material is the date of the noting in the
inquiry register. The date of the noting is 29.11.2018, which
falls in Assessment Year 2019-20. However, the petitioner
purchased the land bearing Survey No. 31 at Village Kaneti by
registered sale deed dated 03.04.2021 – i.e., approximately
twenty-eight months after the date of the noting. The entry in
the register, therefore, predates the actual purchase
transaction of the petitioner by a very considerable period. In
this background, the entry dated 29.11.2018 can, at best, be
viewed as a market survey reflecting the asking rate for land
available for 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.
Page 8 of 12
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:06:16 IST 2026

C/SCA/6600/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
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 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.
12. We further note that the register entry relates to the
entire land bearing Survey No. 31 admeasuring 11,152 sq. mtr.
(4.69 vigha). However, the petitioner along with co-purchasers
purchased only a portion of this land, and the remaining 2,025
sq. mtr. continues to remain under the ownership of the
original sellers and did not form part of the petitioner's
purchase transaction. The register entry thus covers an area
Page 9 of 12
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:06:16 IST 2026

C/SCA/6600/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
considerably larger than the actual extent of land purchased
by the petitioner, and this discrepancy further militates against
any live connection between the seized register entry and the
petitioner's transaction.
13. The name "Sanjay Thakor" appearing in the seized
inquiry register is of a person who is entirely unconnected to
and unknown by the petitioner. The petitioner has specifically
pointed out that no inquiry whatsoever has been conducted by
the Department from Sanjay Thakor, whose name actually
appears in the register. The Assessing Officer has drawn
satisfaction in the case of the petitioner based on the same
register entry while completely ignoring the person whose
name appears therein, without making any inquiry from said
person. Furthermore, the statement of Shri Pravin Nagjibhai
Bavadiya recorded under the provisions of Section 131 of the
IT Act does not in any manner mention the name of the
petitioner or the co-purchasers. Thus, we do not find any direct
or indirect link between the petitioner and the seized
document. The revenue has attempted to reopen the
assessment year 2022-23 only on the basis of some vague
information allegedly connected from the seized 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:
Page 10 of 12
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:06:16 IST 2026

C/SCA/6600/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
"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.
16. We find further support in two recent decisions of this
Court arising from the very same search. In Trupti Aakash
Desai v. ITO, Ward 3(3)(5), Ahmedabad [Special Civil
Application No. 985 of 2026, decided on 08.04.2026], this
Court, dealing with the search at B Safal Group conducted on
28.09.2021 and the very same seized inquiry register, held
that the entries therein 'cannot be used in vacuum' and that a
live and direct nexus between the seized material and the
assessee sought to be reopened is a sine qua non. In Kantilal
Parsotamdas Patel v. ITO [Special Civil Application No. 3676 of
2026, decided on 08.04.2026], this Court, following the
aforesaid line of reasoning and dealing with a similar set of
facts arising from the same search, quashed the reassessment
proceedings. The present case, on its facts and in law, is
indistinguishable from both these decisions and deserves to
succeed on this additional ground as well.
Page 11 of 12
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:06:16 IST 2026

C/SCA/6600/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2026
FINAL ORDER
17. Hence, we are of the opinion that the assessment has
been sought to be reopened on the basis of conjectures and
surmises. The seized inquiry register entry does not establish
any live nexus with the petitioner. There is no direct or indirect
link between the seized document and the present petitioner.
The invocation of the proceedings under Section 148 of the IT
Act is ill-conceived and unsustainable. Accordingly, the
captioned writ petition stands allowed. The impugned Notice
dated 20.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the IT Act is
hereby quashed and set aside.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
MAHESH/SUPP./02
Page 12 of 12
Uploaded by MAHESH OMPRAKASH BHATI(HC01086) on Mon Jul 06 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 06 19:06:16 IST 2026