Dhruv Vijaykumar Trivedi Vs DCIT (Gujarat High Court)
Facts of the Case
The petitioner had sold disputed land for ₹80 lakh and duly filed return of income for AY 2019–20. Subsequently, during a survey under Section 133A conducted in the case of unrelated entities (Crown Decor Pvt. Ltd.), certain digital data was extracted from a mobile phone belonging to an employee of another unrelated entity (Olympic Decor LLP). This data contained (i) a draft, undated complaint allegedly written by a broker and (ii) an image of a handwritten note suggesting cash transactions. Based on this material, the Department alleged that the petitioner had paid ₹4.68 crore in cash and initiated reassessment proceedings by issuing notice under Section 148A(1), later passing order under Section 148A(3) and issuing notice under Section 148.
Assessing Officer’s Findings
The Assessing Officer relied heavily on the survey dissemination note and digital evidence recovered from third-party devices, inferring that the petitioner was involved in substantial cash transactions for settlement of land disputes. The AO treated the contents of the undated complaint and mobile data as credible information indicating income escaping assessment of ₹1.17 crore, and rejected the petitioner’s objections without conducting independent verification of the source or authenticity of such material.
