RANCHODBHAI K. THESIA,RAJKOT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the reasons provided for reopening the assessment lacked a direct link between the seized material and the belief that income had escaped assessment. Consequently, the reopening was quashed, rendering the assessment proceedings invalid.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment for AY 2009-10 based on documents seized during a search in the B. Nanji Group, which indicated land transactions involving the assessee. The assessee challenged the validity of this reopening.
What were the issues?
Whether the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was validly initiated based on the reasons provided by the Assessing Officer.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT : The assessee and Revenue are in cross appeal against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [“CIT(A)” in short] dated 21st December 2016 passed for Assessment Year 2009-10.
The assessee in his appeal raised a preliminary issue whereby the assessee has challenged the reopening of the assessment by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short). & 488/Ahd/2017 Assessee : Raanchodbhai K Thesia AY : 2009-2010 2
With the assistance of learned representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that the Assessing Officer has observed in his assessment order that a search under Section 132 of the Act was carried out in the cases of B. Nanji Group on 04.03.2010 and various documents/material were found and seized from the residential premises of the members of this group. The details of land transactions carried out with the assessees were revealed from the seized material. Accordingly, he issued notice under Section 148 of the Act on 30.08.2012. The assessee has filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,14,870/- on 22.10.2012 and accordingly the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order on 28.03.2014.
Appeal to the learned CIT(A) did bring partial relief to the assessee. While impugning the reopening of the assessment, the learned Counsel for the assessee took us through the reasons for reopening the assessment which is available on page no.17 of the paper-book. Such reasons read as under:- “Name & address of the Assessee : Shri Ranchhodbhai K. Thesia Govindpara, Grain Market Road, Kalavad, Shitla, Rajkot PAN : AEXPT 1534 P AY : 2009-10
REASONS FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 Relationship/Link of the present The registered purchase deeds at Vejalka, case with the persons searched Shiyal etc. have been made in the name of this person Status of the said case viz. Related to the group employee, Director, Consultant etc. Role of the person in influencing The person has lent his name for the business transactions of the investments made by the group person searched & 488/Ahd/2017 Assessee : Raanchodbhai K Thesia AY : 2009-2010 3
Seizure of books, documents, The registered purchase deeds for the electronic storage devices or cash lands at Vejalka, Shiyal etc. have been or other assets belonging to such seized during the course of search person Survey/enquiry conducted in the A statement u/s 131 was recorded on case of such persons, the findings 10.06.2010 of which are essential for determining concealment Investigation potential of the In addition to the above lands, the name cases in view of the findings of of this person may have been utilized for search or suspicious nature of other investments by the group. transactions between the said person and the search group Any other issue found during Lending of the name by this person may search which is important for the have implications under Benami investigation and prosecution of Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. such persons
Sd/- (RAMDHAN MEENA) Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad”
A perusal of Section 147 would reveal that it contemplates that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153, assess or re-assess such income………….. The prime condition for invoking this section would be the belief of the Assessing Officer which should have a direct link between the material available vis-à-vis formation of belief on the basis of reasons stuck to his mind based on such material. A perusal of the above reasons would indicate that nowhere the Assessing Officer has analyzed the details. He has nowhere recorded as to how he believed that the income has escaped assessment. He has just narrated certain facts in a tabular format; but, how the assessee is associated with that was not mentioned. Even the nature of & 488/Ahd/2017 Assessee : Raanchodbhai K Thesia AY : 2009-2010 4 material is not discernible. Therefore, we are satisfied that there is no live nexus between the material available vis-à-vis formation of belief for escapement of income. There is no justification to uphold such reopening. Accordingly, we quash the reopening which consequentially held the assessment proceedings invalid. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed and consequentially the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed; whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 17th November 2021 at Ahmedabad.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026