Gujarat High Court
Kifs Infrastructure Llp vs Income Tax Office Ward - 1(1)(1) ... on 8 April, 2026
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4028/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4028 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
=================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes
No
✔
==================================================
KIFS INFRASTRUCTURE LLP
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD - 1(1)(1) AHMEDABAD & ORS.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AADITYA BHATT for the Respondent (s) No. 1,3,4
MAUNIL G YAJNIK(9346) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 08/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Aaditya Bhatt for the respondents.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Aaditya Bhatt waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.
3. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
4. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 11 01:19:43 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4028/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined the petitioner has challenged the notice issued by respondent no. 1 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the Assessment Year 2020-21.
5. The facts in brief leading to filing of the present petition are that the petitioner has filed its return of income on 21.10.2020 declaring income of Rs.12,88,730/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that one B Safal and City Estate Management India group of entities, real estate developer and broker of Ahmedabad were subjected to search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act on 28.09.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the fact that no incriminating material was found, the respondent No. 1 proceeded to issue the impugned notice dated 30.03.2025 under Section 148 of the Act, alleging escapement of income amounting to Rs. 33,61,62,013/-, after obtaining prior approval from respondent No. 4.
5.1. It is the case of the petitioner that, along with the aforesaid notice, a satisfaction note dated 24.03.2025 as well as the approval thereof granted by respondent No. 3 on 26.03.2025 were also furnished. Thereafter, a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act came to be issued on 22.12.2025. In response to the said notice, the petitioner had already filed objections to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 30.03.2025. The petitioner, vide communication dated 29.12.2025, also requested the respondents to furnish various documents, namely, the appraisal report, documents received from the Investigation Department, copy of the inquiry register, statement of Shri Pravin Nagjibhai Bavadiya and the key person of City Estate Group recorded by the Revenue, as well as the satisfaction note prepared by the Assessing Officer of the person searched, etc. It is further the case of the petitioner that, since the objections were not disposed of by the Assessing Officer, the petitioner, vide letter dated 01.01.2026, submitted its response to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act.
Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 11 01:19:43 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4028/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/04/2026 undefined
6. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Soparkar appearing for the petitioner while pointing out the incriminating material i.e. information on the loose paper as incorporated in the Assessment Order, has submitted that the Assessing Officer has absolutely fell in error in reopening the assessment as the Survey number mentioned therein of the land in question being Survey No. 581 does not relate to the present petitioner and in fact the sale deed dated 26.07.2019 which is referred in the Assessment Order relates to Survey No. 988. Thus, it is submitted that the entire reopening of the assessment is premised on the incorrect facts.
7. When the aforesaid discrepancies were pointed out to the learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Aaditya Bhatt for the respondents, he is unable to dispute the same.
8. In view of the aforestated facts, thus, it is established that the reopening of the assessment is premised on the incriminating material which does not relate to the petitioner. Therefore, Survey No. 581 which is found in the incriminating material i.e. loose chit, does not relate to the petitioner. Hence the rate mentioned of Rs.17,000/- on which the Assessing Officer has concluded that the value of the property in question exceeds than the one which is mentioned in the sale deed, that too of Survey No. 988, in fact is an incorrect assessment premised on the incorrect fact regarding Survey number. Therefore, only on this sole ground, the impugned notice is required to be quashed and set aside.
9. In view of the above, the present petition stands allowed. The impugned notice dated 30.03.2025 as well as other consequential proceedings are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) (PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) phalguni/43 Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Fri Apr 10 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 11 01:19:43 IST 2026