JUDGMENT :

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

1. The petitioner, by way of present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the notices dated 28.02.2026 issued by the respondent under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') wherein the respondent has sought to revise completed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20.

2. BRIEF FACTS:

2.1 Since facts and issue are common, Special Civil Application no.4314 is taken up as lead matter. The Petitioner filed return of income for AY 2019-20 on 03.10.2019 reporting total income at Rs.2,36,22,720/-.

2.2 A search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act was carried out on 15.10.2019 in the case of "Land Broker & Financier Group" and one of the searched party was Mr. Dhaval Teli. From the mobile phone of Shri Teli, images of one Memorandum of Understanding (for short ‘MoU’) was found and seized. The said MoU was between the Dilip Atmaram Patel, Ashok Atmaram Patel (proposed Sellers) and Dhiren R Bharwad (proposed purchaser) for sale of land at Survey No.329 for Rs.39.32 crores. On being asked, Mr.Teli explained that although he was the broker for the said transaction but it eventually did not go through due to Title Disputes. The Officer thereafter investigated the data in public domain and gathered information that the said land at Survey No.329 is eventually sold to the Sandhya Maulik Patel and Maulik Jayantibhai Patel for Rs.12 crores on 12.04.2018. Satisfaction note, noting the said facts, was recorded to initiate proceedings under Section 153C of the Act.

2.3 The Assessing Officer, thereafter, issued notice under Section 153C of the Act to the petitioner, on 13.10.2021, to carry out assessment. In the said Assessment Proceedings, the Assessing Officer referred the matter to Departmental Valuation Officer (for short ‘DVO’) to determine the market Price of the land sold. As per the letter of DVO dated 08.05.2023, the value of the land was determined at Rs.28.50 crores. Therefore, the Assessing officer held that the sale consideration for the sale of land was Rs.28.50 crores and not Rs.12 crores as per the registered sale deed. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order under Section 153C dated 19.06.2023. The petitioner has filed appeal against the assessment order, and the said appeal is pending. The respondent has, thereafter, issued the impugned notice under Section 263 of the Act, on 28.02.2026. The petitioner, vide letter dated 05.03.2026, sought for adjournment. One more notice under Section 263 of the Act, dated 10.03.2026, is issued by the respondent.

3. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE :

3.1 Mr. B.S.Soparkar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned notice is also ex facie without jurisdiction in as much as the very assessment under Section 153C of the Act was undertaken due to satisfaction being recorded based upon purported incriminating material found in the search. Once the Assessing Officer has undertaken the complete exercise of assessment of income taking into consideration the entire material available before him then it is not open for the respondent to peruse the very same material to revise the assessment under Section 263 of the Act. It is therefore submitted that the Assessing Officer has made thorough inquiry into the facts of the case and took a plausible decision to such facts. It is therefore submitted that there is no error as such in the order that can be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and hence, the notice under Section 263 of the Act is bad and illegal at very threshold. It is further submitted that the respondent has also not brought any new facts that were not available before the Assessing Officer. There is not even a whisper on failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to carry out sufficient inquiry in the matter. The impugned notice on the face of it notes that the respondent has e