IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9868 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

==========================================================

PRAKASH MISRIMAL SANGHVI Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) , AHMEDABAD ==========================================================

Appearance:

MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 02/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. RULE. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent – Department. Since a pure question of law is raised in the writ petition, the same was heard extensively and is finally decided today by this present judgment and order.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petition are as under:

2.1 The petitioner is an individual and citizen of India and he is, therefore, entitled to the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The Respondent is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

2.2 A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was initiated on Ratnamani Group on 23.11.2021.

2.3 Subsequently, on 29.03.2023, the petitioner is issued the impugned notice for reopening u/s 148 for the AY 2012-13 inter alia other notices u/s 148 for other Assessment Years. The petitioner filed his preliminary objections against the issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 07.04.2023.

2.4 Shockingly disregarding the objections of the petitioner, the respondent has passed an order disposing off objections on 26.04.2023.

2.5 The respondent has, thereafter, issued notice u/s 142(1) on 08.04.2023. The petitioner replied to the same vide reply dated 17.04.2023 and 06.05.2023. The respondent has thereafter issued a show-cause notice on 28.04.2023 and the petitioner has replied to the same on 09.05.2023.

2.5A The respondent has, thereafter, passed the assessment order on 02.06.2023 at Rs. 58,08,04,430/- and raised the demand of Rs.37,70,35,033/-. The respondent has also issued notice for penalty u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) on 09.06.2023. It is crucial to note that the respondent has not provided any opportunity of personal hearing nor issued any draft assessment order.

3. Learned advocate Mr. B.S.Soparkar appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the impugned notice is barred by limitation and runs contrary to the provisions of Section 149 read with Section 153A(1)(b) read with Explanation 1 to Section 153A of the Act. Mr. Soparkar, learned advocate, has advanced the following submissions :

3.1 Relying upon Section 149 of the Act, it is contended that the notice under Section 148 of the Act can be issued up to six years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Further, relying upon Sections 153A and 153C of the Act, he would submit that notices under Sections 153A / 153C of the Act can be issued for a period of “ten assessment years” immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is carried out and for the “relevant assessment years”, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. 3.2 It is submitted that the “relevant assessment year” means an assessment year preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is carried out or requisition is made, which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than ten assessment years from the “end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted”.

3.3 Reference is also made to the provisions of Section 149 of the Act, more par