JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Umaid Singh Bhati for the petitioners and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondents. 2. Having regard to the controversy involved in these petitions, with the consent of learned advocate for the respective parties, the matters are heard together and are being disposed off by this common judgment. 3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents in the respective petitions. 4. Special Civil Application No.6462/2022 and Special Civil Application No.6463/2022 are filed in case of Ashokkumar Premchandbhai Patel challenging notice under section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT ,1961 (for short ’the Act’) dated 29.03.2021 for Assessment Year 2013-2014 and notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 for Assessment Year 2014- 2015 respectively along with assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act dated 30.03.2022. 5. This Court passed the order issuing notice on 30.03.2022 and has also granted ad interim order in terms of para 11(C) of the petition restraining the respondent Assessing Officer on further proceedings in pursuance of notice under section 148 of the Act. 6. Special Civil Application No.14513/2023 and Special Civil Application No. 14489/2023 are in case of Pravinkumar Premchandbhai Patel, brother of the petitioner in the aforesaid two cases wherein notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 for Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 respectively are challenged. So far as these two petitions are concerned, it is second round of litigation as earlier the petitioner had challenged the same notices by preferring Special Civil Application No. 4007 of 2022 and Special Civil Application No. 3462 of 2022 which were allowed by remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass detailed order giving reasons for disposing off the objections filed by the petitioner objecting to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act for both the assessment years. Thereafter the Assessing Officer passed the speaking order disposing off the objections on 11.07.2023 rejecting the objections of the petitioner for reopening. The petitioner has therefore, again preferred these two petitions challenging the notice for reopening dated 30.03.2021 and the order disposing off the objection dated 11.07.2023 for Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. 7. Thereafter the Assessing Officer passed the speaking order disposing off the objections on 11.07.2023 rejecting the objections of the petitioner for reopening. The petitioner has therefore, again preferred these two petitions challenging the notice for reopening dated 30.03.2021 and the order disposing off the objection dated 11.07.2023 for Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. 7. The petitioners derive income from salary from their family concern M/s. Patel D.J. Tobacco Products Private Limited since 2006 and also earns interest from loans and advances, investments and deposits with the bank. 8. The petitioners filed their return of income for both the Assessment Years which have been processed under section 143(1) of the Act. 9. The petitioners filed revised return of income on 30.11.2015 declaring capital gain on the sale of agricultural land which was an exempt income. 10. The petitioners thereafter received the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 for both the assessment years. The petitioners filed return of income pursuant to the notice under section 148 of the Act declaring the same income which was offered to tax earlier. The respondent Assessing Officer thereafter uploaded the notice under section 143(2) of the Act for the month of September, 2021 containing the extract of reasons without disclosing the date of recording of the reasons alleging that the petitioners have entered into bogus sub contract with Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. and investment made by the petitioners did not match with income profile nor such investment is reflected in the books of accounts of the petitioners and as complete set of reasons was not provided to the petitioners, the petitioners made request to the Assessing Officer to provide the same. However, the petitioners in absence of the reasons recorded uploaded the objections which were disposed off by the Assessing Officer without considering the same and notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued calling upon the petitioners to provide details in connection with transfer of capital assets. 11. In Special Civil Application No. 6462 of 2022 and Special Civil Application No. 6463 of 2022 in case of Ashokkumar Premchandbhai Patel, no order was passed disposing off the objections raised by the petitioners and show cause notice-cum- draft assessment order was uploaded on 28.03.2022 after filing of the petitions by the petitioner and on 30.03.2022 this Court issued the notice and granted interim stay. However, the assessment orders are also passed by the respondents on the same day i.e. 30.03.2022 therefore, the petitions were amended to challenge the assessment orders. 12. So far as Special Civil Application No. 14513 of 2023 and Special Civil Application No.14489 of 2023 are concerned, in the earlier round of litigation after considering the submissions made by both the sides, this Court vide order dated 29.08.2022 remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to pass a detailed order giving reasons for disposing off the objections filed by the petitioners. Accordingly, the order dated 11.07.2023 was passed rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners. 13. Learned advocate Mr.Umaid Singh Bhati for the petitioners at the outset submitted that similar notice was issued in case of other brother namely, Gunvantbhai Premchandbhai Patel on the same reasons for reopening for the same period i.e. 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 and after considering the reply filed by the assessee in respect of the land sold by the assessee along with the petitioners who were co-owners, accepted the return of income filed accepting the reply submitted by the said assessee. 14. It was submitted that the agricultural land situated at Village Sabalpur, Taluka Viramgam, District Ahemdabad was sold by the co-owners namely, Pravinkumar Premchandbhai Patel, Ashokkumar Premchandbhai Patel, Roger K. Patel, Gunvant P. Patel and Pritambhai Rameshbhai Patel in the year under consideration as such land was purchased during the financial year 1998-1999 by making proportionate payment at the relevant time. It was submitted that the petitioners have been showing agricultural income in the return of income till Assessment Year 2012-2013 and investments made by the petitioners was also shown in balance sheet and during the financial year 2013-2014, relevant to Assessment Year 2014-2015, the petitioners along with aforesaid co-owners had sold the four land parcels by executing the conveyance deed. It was submitted that the petitioners have been showing agricultural income in the return of income till Assessment Year 2012-2013 and investments made by the petitioners was also shown in balance sheet and during the financial year 2013-2014, relevant to Assessment Year 2014-2015, the petitioners along with aforesaid co-owners had sold the four land parcels by executing the conveyance deed. It was submitted that respondent no.1 on the basis of information regarding sale of land parcel and alleged payment of on money in connection with transfer of the same, has issued the impugned notice for reopening by working out quantum of on- money attributable to the petitioner on the basis of the imaginary percentage, more particularly, when agricultural land situated near Village Sabalpur, Taluka Viramgam, do not fall within the meaning of “capital asset" under section 2(14) (iii) of the Act and the petitioners have claimed exemption from capital gain on transfer of their shares in the four parcels of land in revised return of income uploaded on 30.11.2025 and therefore, there is no escapement of income as alleged by the respondent Assessing Officer. 15. It was submitted that the information relied upon by the Assessing Officer was vague and not specific as to particular assessment year and the respondent Assessing Officer has issued the notice without having any tangible information. It was also submitted that the petitioners have raised objection that information was based on dumb documents impounded/seized from Shri Pritamkumar Rameshbhai Patel and not supported by any tangible material or statement of the person searched/surveyed. However, such objection is not at all replied or considered in the order disposing off the objections. It was therefore, submitted that it is settled position of law that reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer without any addition, substitution or deletion and such reasons should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness. 16. Learned advocate Mr. It was therefore, submitted that it is settled position of law that reasons are required to be read as they were recorded by the Assessing Officer without any addition, substitution or deletion and such reasons should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness. 16. Learned advocate Mr. Bhati in support of his submission relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. , (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) and decision of this Court in case of Sagar Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax , (2002) 257 ITR 335 (Gujarat) to submit that when the respondent Assessing Officer himself is not sure as to the year of taxability and whether the income has escaped assessment for Assessment Year 2013-2014 or 2014-2015, notice for reopening would be without jurisdiction. 17. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel appearing for the respondents submitted that cases of the petitioners are covered as per Explanation 2(b) to section 147 as no assessment has been made in case of the petitioners and only intimation was issued under section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter search and seizure action under section 132 was conducted at various premises of Sadbhav Group concerns on 06.04.2017 and further survey action was also conducted at the residential premises of Shri Pritamkumar Rameshbhai Patel and during such search/survey proceedings, incriminating evidence against the petitioners were found and seized. It was submitted that information was uploaded on Insight Portal by ACIT, Central Circle- 1(3), Ahmedabad for Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 and after considering such information, the Assessing Officer recorded in writing the reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment after taking prior approval from the competent authority under section 151 of the Act to issue impugned notice for reopening. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) . It was therefore, submitted that the impugned notice and orders are just, proper and legal as due procedure has been followed by the Assessing Officer. 18. It was therefore, submitted that the impugned notice and orders are just, proper and legal as due procedure has been followed by the Assessing Officer. 18. It was further submitted that in case of Pravinkumar Premchandbhai Patel pursuant to the remand made by this Court, speaking order dated 11.07.2023 has been passed rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner giving detailed reasons and in view of such order no interference is required to be made by this Court by exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case and material placed on record, it appears that the impugned notices for Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 are issued by the respondent Assessing Officer for alleged bogus sub contract with Sadbhav Engineering Ltd as well as alleged on-money received on sale of agricultural lands by the petitioners. However, there is no tangible material available with the Assessing Officer and y reliance was placed only on the information reflected in the Insight Portal without any other corroborative material or live nexus with such information made available on Insight Portal reflected in the reasons recorded. 20. On perusal of the reasons recorded, it appears that the Assessing Officer has failed to disclose or provide any incriminating material allegedly found during the search/survey of residential premises of Shri Pritamkumar Rameshbhai Patel pertaining to the assessee indicating that the petitioners have understated the income or claimed excessive losses, deductions etc. Instead the respondent has relied on unsubstantiated information regarding bogus contact worth either Rs. 21 crores or Rs. 42 crores with Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. with final amount remaining unclear so far as Assessment Year 2014-2015 in case of Pravinkumar Premchandbhai Patel. 21. With regard to transaction of sale of agricultural land is concerned, the respondents have accepted the reply filed in case of Gunvantbhai Premchandbhai Patel who is co-owner of such sale transaction in the assessment order. 42 crores with Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. with final amount remaining unclear so far as Assessment Year 2014-2015 in case of Pravinkumar Premchandbhai Patel. 21. With regard to transaction of sale of agricultural land is concerned, the respondents have accepted the reply filed in case of Gunvantbhai Premchandbhai Patel who is co-owner of such sale transaction in the assessment order. Therefore, the very basis of reopening of alleged receipt of on-money by the petitioners on sale of four parcels of agricultural land is not in existence as no addition has been made in case of other co-owner which clearly shows that there is absence of any tangible material with the respondent assessing officer at the time of recording the reasons which is a mandatory requirement for assumption of jurisdiction for reopening for formation of reasonable belief for escapement of income. 22. It is also pertinent to note that so far as Special Civil Application No.6462/2022 and Special Civil Application No. 6463/2022 are concerned, the assessment orders have been passed on the same day i.e. 30.03.2022 when this Court issued the notice and granted stay of further proceedings. Therefore, assessment orders are also challenged whereby additions are made in absence of any reply filed by the petitioners in view of challenge to the notice of reopening before this Court. It is also pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.3,84,06,582/- for alleged on-money received without any basis. 23. Pursuant to order passed by this Court, Respondent has also placed on record relevant extract from the record available online forming part of the original record of the petitions and on perusal of the same, it appears that the Insight Portal only reveals that assessee has entered into bogus sub-contract with Sadbhav Engineering Ltd for Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 for Rs. 21 crores in case of Pravinkumar Premchandbhai Patel on the basis of seized material in case of Pritamkumar R. Patel which has no nexus with the petitioner Pravinkumar Premchandbhai Patel. 24. Similarly in case of Ashokkumar Premchandbhai Patel information from Insight Portal discloses cash sales of immovable property by group of persons for both the Assessment Years amounting to Rs.21,22,24,726/- only on the basis of documents impounded during the course of search/survey in case of Pritamkumar Rameshbhai Patel without any reference to the petitioner. 24. Similarly in case of Ashokkumar Premchandbhai Patel information from Insight Portal discloses cash sales of immovable property by group of persons for both the Assessment Years amounting to Rs.21,22,24,726/- only on the basis of documents impounded during the course of search/survey in case of Pritamkumar Rameshbhai Patel without any reference to the petitioner. We have also perused the documents available on record which also do not refer to any tangible material having live nexus with the alleged escapement of income. 25. In view of foregoing reasons, the petitions succeed and are accordingly allowed. Impugned notices dated 29.03.2021 and 30.03.2021 as well as assessment orders dated 30.03.2022 which are challenged in in Special Civil Application No.6462/2022 and Special Civil Application No. 6463/2022 in case of Ashokkumar Premchandbhai Patel are hereby quashed and set aside. Similarly notices dated 30.03.2021 and orders disposing off the objections dated 11.07.2023 which are challenged in Special Civil Application No.14513/2023 and Special Civil Application No.14489/2023 in case of Pravinkumar Premchandbhai Patel are also quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. 26. Original files be returned to the counsel for the respondent.