9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi ) 1. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 26.06.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhinagar, in the proceedings under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ['the Act' for short]. 2. Brief facts are as under: The petitioner had filed the return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 declaring total income of Rs. 94,440/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 2.95 crores in favour of the third party i.e. M/s. Pushpadanta Infrastructure Ltd.. The petitioner could not offer explanation. The petitioner could also not give full details of the assessment proceedings of the said company. The petitioner could not justify why such hefty sum, which represented more than 80% of the sale consideration, was paid to a third party where the petitioner himself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cquired any right in the property nor had possession of the same. There was no logical reason why the petitioner being the owner of the land who received only Rs. 58.68 lacs whereas the confirming party who received Rs. 2.95 crores. Inter alia on such grounds, the revision petition came to be dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner had earlier ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vour of Kusumben Doshi. As per the sale deed, the petitioner received only Rs. 58.68 lacs by way of sale consideration whereas M/s. Pushpadanta Infrastructure Ltd., as the confirming party, received Rs. 2.95 crores. There is not a word in the sale deed why the majority of the sale consideration was diverted to M/s. Pushpadanta Infrastructure Ltd. The petitioner has not been able to produce before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that in para 5 of the order dated 10.06.2016 in the following sentence word 'not' before the words 'the onus of the petitioner' was, due to typographical error, omitted. "The counsel for the petitioner contended that it was the onus of the petitioner to bring on record the details about M/s. Pushpadanta Infrastructure Ltd. and, the Assessing Officer ought to have made inquiries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
