Gujarat High Court sets aside reassessment under Section 148A founded on uncorroborated complaint and third‑party digital data

Background and procedural history

The matter in Trupti Vijay Trivedi Vs ITO (Gujarat High Court) arose from a challenge to reassessment proceedings initiated under the Income Tax Act 1961 for Assessment Year 2019-20. The assessee invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail:

  • The notice issued under Section 148A(1) dated 29.03.2025,
  • The order passed under Section 148A(3) dated 12.06.2025, and
  • The consequential notice under Section 148 issued for AY 2019-20.

The High Court, noting that the controversy was confined to a limited issue, heard the writ petition finally with the consent of both sides. Rule was issued and accepted by the Revenue through learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on its behalf.

Land transaction and civil dispute chronology

Purchase and mutation entries

The assessee and her family members jointly acquired two pieces of land measuring 40,875 sq. mtrs. and 4,757 sq. mtrs. from:

  • Shri Vikrambhai Khodabhai Desai,
  • Shri Gafurbhai Khodabhai Desai,
  • Khodabhai Jayamalbhai Desai, and
  • Shri Lilabhai Thobanbhai Desai.

Mutation entries in favour of the assessee’s family were made on 23.08.2013 and 26.08.2013.

Subsequently, one Shahnoor Sarosh Kothawala preferred an appeal under Rule 108(5) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972. By an order dated 24.09.2015, the Deputy Collector accepted the appeal and declared the mutation entries invalid.

That order was challenged before the District Collector, Ahmedabad by the assessee.

Subsequent sale and police complaint

While the appeal before the District Collector was pending, on 26.02.2016, Shahnoor Sarosh Kothawala executed a sale deed in favour of one Pradeep Vallabhbhai Joiser in respect of the disputed property.

In response, the assessee lodged a police complaint on 22.08.2016 against Pradeep Vallabhbhai Joiser and others, alleging forcible and illegal dispossession from the land.

Thereafter, by order dated 05.05.2016, the District Collector, Ahmedabad set aside the order dated 24.09.2015 of the Deputy Collector, Sanand and restored the original mutation entries in favour of the assessee’s side.

Civil suit and revenue revision

  1. The assessee instituted Special Civil Suit No. 406 of 2016 before the District Court (Rural), Ahmedabad.

    • Relief sought included cancellation of the sale deed between Shahnoor Kothawala and Pradeep Joiser, and
    • Declaration of title and possession over the disputed land.

  2. Parallelly, Shahnoor Kothawala and Pradeep Joiser filed a revision and stay application before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) [SSRD], challenging the District Collector’s order dated 05.05.2016.

    • The SSRD rejected the revision on 14.09.2016.

  3. The civil suit was later renumbered as Special Civil Suit No. 625 of 2017.

Compromise sale and filing of return

Subsequently, on 21.10.2019, the assessee withdrew Special Civil Suit No. 625 of 2017, having executed a sale deed dated 23.10.2019 in favour of Pradeep Joiser for a consideration of ₹80,00,000.

Post this transaction, the assessee filed her return of income for AY 2019-20 on 24.10.2019, declaring total income of ₹8,99,950.

Survey proceedings and digital material

Survey under Section 133A

On 22.10.2024, a survey operation under Section 133A was conducted in the case of Crown Decor Pvt. Ltd. at its factory and office locations. During this survey:

  • Multiple digital devices were identified, backed up, and impounded.
  • In the course of post-survey forensic analysis, data from the mobile phone of Shri Praful Bhatt, an employee of Olympic Decor LLP, was examined.

From this mobile device, the following materials were found: