Unsubstantiated seized material with no live link to the assessee cannot justify reopening assessment under Section 148.

The petitioner filed a return of income for Assessment Year 2022-23.

On September 28, 2021, a search and seizure operation under Section 132/132A was conducted on the Bsafal and City Estate Groups.

The Revenue Department recovered a "loose paper chit" dated August 11, 2017, from a broker (Shri Pravin Bavadiya), which listed property rates—including Survey No. 101 at Moje Shela at a rate of Rs. 17,000 per sq. yard.

The petitioner had purchased land at that survey number via a sale deed dated October 12, 2021, for Rs. 2 Crores.

Relying on the 2017 chit, the Revenue calculated the "actual" value at approximately Rs. 16 Crores and issued a notice under Section 148 dated March 27, 2026, alleging that "on-money" (unaccounted cash) was paid.

The petitioner challenged the nexus between the 2017 material and his 2021 transaction.

1. Whether there existed a "live link" or relevant material to establish a prima facie belief that income had escaped assessment under Section 148 of the Act.

2. Whether incriminating material dated four years prior to a transaction can form the basis for reopening an assessment without specific evidence linking the assessee to said material.

Section 148 and Clause (iv) to Explanation 2 of the Act, which grants the Revenue power to reopen assessments based on information that "pertains to" or "relates to" the assessee.

The Revenue only needs a prima facie basis for reopening, not proof of sufficiency (Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO).

Requirement of a "reasonable person's" belief founded on relevant material (ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.).

Necessity of a live link between the material and the assessee (Naliniben Jagdishkumar Gandhi v. ITO).

The court found that the Revenue failed to establish a "live link" between the seized material and the petitioner, noting that the loose paper chit was dated August 11, 2017, whereas the petitioner’s transaction occurred four years later on October 12, 2021.

The court observed that the chit did not contain the petitioner’s name or identifiable figures, and the broker’s statement (Shri Bavadiya) made no mention of the petitioner.

The Revenue’s attempt to bridge this gap using "Any RoR" website data to link the survey number was deemed insufficient because the phrases "relates to" and "pertains to" in Section 148 cannot be applied in a vacuum without analyzing attendant circumstances.

The court reasoned that the information was "vague and unspecific," and imposing a 2017 rate on a 2021 transaction without remote evidence of a connection to the searched groups (Bsafal or City Estate) was legally unsustainable.

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notice under Section 148 dated March 27, 2026. Rule was made absolute.