Reassessment unsustainable if based solely on third-party broker registers lacking direct nexus with the assessee.

The petitioner, a real estate firm, filed its return for A.Y. 2022-23.

On September 28, 2021, a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted on the 'B Safal Group' and 'City Estate Group'.

An inquiry register belonging to a broker, Shri Pravin Bavadiya, was seized, containing a notation dated April 22, 2021, regarding land at Moje Santej with an "asking rate" and the name "Sanjay Thakkar".

The respondent issued a notice under Section 148 on March 29, 2026, alleging the petitioner paid "on-money" of Rs. 46.21 crores based on the difference between the sale deed dated September 21, 2021, and the "asking rate" in the seized register.

The petitioner challenged this notice under Article 226.

1. Whether the Assessing Officer had "information" suggesting escapement of income sufficient to invoke jurisdiction under Section 148 of the Act.

2. Whether a live link existed between the material seized from a third party (the broker) and the petitioner to justify reopening the assessment.

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

The court considered Explanation 2(iv) to Section 148, which deems information to exist if seized documents "pertain to" or "relate to" the assessee.

The court assessed the statutory presumptions under Sections 132(4A) and 292C regarding the ownership and truthfulness of seized documents.

The court relied on the precedent Naliniben Jagdishkumar Gandhi v. ITO, which held that re-assessment requires a "live link" connecting the assessee to the seized material beyond mere survey numbers.

The court found that the foundation for reopening was based on "conjectures and surmises".

The register entry (April 22, 2021) predated the actual purchase (September 21, 2021) by five months, suggesting it was merely a market "asking rate" rather than a concluded transaction.

The name in the register was "Sanjay Thakkar," a person unknown to the petitioner, and no inquiry was conducted against him.

The broker’s own statement under Section 131 clarified that the registers were for lands "available for sale" and did not implicate the petitioner in any "on-money" payment.

The mere match of survey numbers was insufficient to establish that the information "pertained to" the petitioner under Explanation 2(iv), especially when the area mentioned in the register differed from the area actually purchased.

The inquiry register could not be used "in a vacuum" to assume undisclosed consideration.

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice dated March 29, 2026, issued under Section 148 for A.Y. 2022-23.

Rule was made absolute.