Reassessment based solely on pre-dated inquiry register entries without live nexus to the assessee is unsustainable.

The petitioner, an individual assessee, filed his return for A.Y. 2020-21 declaring an income of Rs. 58,870/-

During a search action under Section 132 on the "B Safal Group" and a real estate broker "City Estate Management India," an inquiry register was seized containing a noting dated 28.11.2018 regarding an "asking rate" for land at Moje Racharda

Simultaneously, data from a search on "A Sridhar Group" involving WhatsApp chats of one Jayesh Patel suggested unaccounted cash components in property transactions

Based on these materials, the Respondent issued a notice dated 31.03.2025 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging that the petitioner paid "on-money" of Rs. 2,69,76,451/- for the purchase/sale of land

The petitioner challenged this notice via a writ petition, contending that the register noting predated his transaction and did not mention his name

1. Whether the Assessing Officer possessed "information" within the meaning of Section 148 to suggest that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.

2. Whether there was a "live link" or nexus between the seized material (inquiry register and WhatsApp chats) and the petitioner to justify reopening the assessment.

The court primarily applied Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which governs the reopening of assessments based on information suggesting escapement of income

It utilized Explanation 2(iv) to Section 148, which deems information to exist if seized documents "pertain to" or "relate to" the assessee

The court relied on the evidentiary presumptions under Sections 132(4A) and 292C regarding materials found during searches

Crucially, it followed the precedent in Naliniben Jagdishkumar Gandhi v. ITO [2025] 183 taxmann.com 126, which held that mere survey numbers in a broker's register without a direct link to the assessee do not constitute sufficient grounds for reassessment

The court found the Revenue’s reliance on the inquiry register misplaced. First, the noting dated 28.11.2018 predated the petitioner's registered sale deed (27.06.2019) by seven months, indicating it was merely an "asking rate" or market survey rather than a concluded transaction

Second, the broker (Shri Bavadiya) admitted in his Section 131 statement that the registers were merely records of "land available for sale" and that the names listed were often third-party owners or other brokers (like "Sanjay Thakkar"), not the purchasers

The court noted that neither the register nor the WhatsApp chats from the Sridhar Group search mention the petitioner’s name

Consequently, the Revenue failed to establish a "live link" connecting the petitioner to the alleged "on-money" payments

The court further observed that the Revenue inconsistently used the same register entry to allege both purchase (A.Y. 2019-20) and sale (A.Y. 2020-21) escapement, rendering the basis of the notice speculative

The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned Notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 for A.Y. 2020-21