Vinod Parsotam Rabara Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court)
Section 148 Notice Quashed for Lack of Live Nexus with 28-Month-Old Broker Register Entry: Gujarat HC
The Gujarat High Court considered a writ petition challenging a notice dated 20.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2022-23. The petitioner had filed the return of income on 17.12.2022 declaring total income of Rs.4,45,21,400. The reopening was based on a search conducted under Section 132 on 28.09.2021 at the premises of B Safal Group and City Estate Management India, during which inquiry registers maintained by a real estate broker were seized. A register entry dated 29.11.2018 relating to land at Village Kaneti, Survey No. 31, was relied upon to allege payment of on-money of Rs.4,88,97,300, being the difference between the registered sale consideration and the rate mentioned in the register.
The petitioner contended that the reopening was based solely on the seized inquiry register and the broker’s statement. It was submitted that the register entry was dated 29.11.2018, whereas the land was purchased by registered sale deed only on 03.04.2021, approximately twenty-eight months later. The petitioner further submitted that the register merely recorded land available for sale and did not record concluded transactions. It was also argued that the register covered the entire land whereas only a portion was purchased, the name appearing in the register was “Sanjay Thakor,” who had no connection with the petitioner, and neither the register nor the broker’s statement referred to the petitioner or co-purchasers. The petitioner also relied upon an ITAT decision concerning the same search and inquiry registers.
