9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal authority - HELD THAT:- The petitioner had produced the copy of the sale deed dated 07.03.2013 before this Court. It is seen therefrom that the petitioner had purchased the property on 07.03.2013 for a sum of ₹ 84,80,000/- . But then the impugned order proceeded on the premise that it is worth of ₹ 8,46,00,000/-. If only the petitioner had produced the materials before the auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Government Pleader for the respondents. 2.The petitioner is an assessee registered under the Income Tax Act. When the petitioner filed his income tax returns for the assessment year 2013-14, he omitted to include the purchase of a landed property made by him. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the assessing officer. Thereupon, the petitioner's assessment was reopened under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authority concerned, he would not be finding himself in the present position. In any event in the interest of justice and to give one more opportunity to the petitioner and since the petitioner had placed prima facie material to show that the impugned order is incorrect, the order impugned in the writ petition is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the file of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
