IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8645 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

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

DIGNESH PRAMUKHLAL PATEL Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD ==================================================

Appearance:

MR DHINAL A SHAH(12077) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 AADITYA D BHATT(8580) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 10/03/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dhinal Shah for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Aaditya Bhatt for the respondent.

2. Having regard to the controversy arising in this petition, which is in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the same is taken up for final hearing. Initially the present petition was admitted on the ground of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and the Faceless Assessing Officer. However, this Court vide order dated 17.09.2025 had concluded the issue and thereafter had kept the present matter to be considered on merits separately. In wake of such factual aspect, the present petition is taken up for consideration on merits

3. Present petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the validity of order dated 07.04.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) along with notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 07.04.2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 by the Income Tax Officer, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent” for short).

4. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner had filed its return of income on 27.07.2018 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs. 27,26,64,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that the assessment proceedings were initiated and the case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny assessment under the provisions of Section 143(3) of the Act.

4.1 Pursuant to the initiation of the proceedings, notice under Section142(1) of the Act was issued for determining the taxable capital gain, more particularly on sale of shares. The petitioner responded to the said notices on various dates by giving complete particulars about the sale of shares and resultant capital gain working including the claim under Section 54F of the Act.

4.2. It is the case of the petitioner that based on the submissions made by the petitioner, the respondent was satisfied with the information and details furnished by the petitioner and on the basis of that, the order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed by the concerned Assessing Officer on 12.03.2021. Thereafter, the respondent by way of notice dated 21.03.2022 issued under Section 148A of the Act initiated reassessment proceedings. The income of the petitioner was proposed to be reassess on the ground that there is a change in the control due to change in the directors of the Company of which the shares were sold by the petitioner and therefore the capital gain income should have been treated as business income and thereby there is escapement of income. The petitioner filed response to the notice by way of reply dated 28.03.2022 giving details of the capital gain and also the reasons as to why the notice dated 21.03.2022 was not correct. It is the case of the petitioner that despite categorical contention raised by the petitioner in the reply, the respondent passed an order dated 07.04.2022 under Section 148A(d) of the Act along with notice under Section 148 of the Act of even date which are impugned in the present writ p