9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Division Bench of this Court had examined the issue at hand from an angle whether a presumption could have been drawn about the excess amount alleged to have been made by the appellant-assessee at the time of the purchase of land. The Division Bench held that it is not permissible to draw an inference from the circumstances surrounding a transaction of sale of property that the purchaser of the property must have paid more than what was actually recorded in his books of account. No presumption can be drawn on this aspect. Having considered the order of the Tribunal and in light of the decision in the case of Gayatri Enterprise (supra), no substantial question of law arises in the appeal, much less the question of law, and therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equently reopened under Sec. 147 of the Act. On a notice being served under Sec. 148, and on a response being filed along with the assessee furnishing details, an assessment order was passed on 15.11.2019. 3.1. The order was taken in revision by the Principal CIT, Rajkot, on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the issues for which reopening had taken place. The revisional authority noted that on examination of records, it was found that the assessee had not provided source of income for purchase of land with other co-owners. Further, assessee's share in purchase of land was Rs. 15,00,000/-, being 25% and it had shown loan of Rs. 15,00,000/-from Shri Kamlesh Timadiya. It was also noticed from the registered sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dharmaja Infrastructure 107 taxmann.com 281 (Gujarat), during relevant years, assessee purchased a property for a consideration of Rs. 1.55 crore. However, value adopted by stamp duty authority as per market rate was Rs. 2.55 crores. The Assessing Officer, on basis of value so adopted by stamp duty authority, made addition to assessee's income under section 69B. The Gujarat High Court held that provisions of section 50C could not be applied for making addition under section 69B. Further, even otherwise, since there was no material on record to show that assessee had in fact made investments over and above that recorded in books of account, impugned addition was to be deleted. In the case of CIT v. Dinesh Jain HUF 25 taxmann.com 550 (De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal indicates that it has observed that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax sought to revise the assessment order only on the basis of presumptions. Relying on a decision in the case of Gayatri Enterprise vs. I.T.O., reported in 420 ITR 15, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the P.C.I.T. under Sec. 263 of the Act. 3.4 In the case of Gayatri Enterprise (supra), the Division Bench of this Court had examined the issue at hand from an angle whether a presumption could have been drawn about the excess amount alleged to have been made by the appellant-assessee at the time of the purchase of land. The Division Bench held that it is not permissible to draw an inference from the circumstances surrounding a transaction of sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
