TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 450
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come on 27-01-2010 declaring income of Rs. 5,37,32,323 and agricultural income of Rs. 3,28,877/-. The return was accompanied by audited profit and loss account and auditors report as per provisions of section 44AB of the I.T. Act. The AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) on 18-11-2011 determining the total income at Rs. 5,38,72,320/- and agricultural income of Rs. 3,28,877/-. 3. Subsequently, the Ld.CIT verified the case records and noted that the assessee has shown short term capital gains of Rs. 5,20,81,805/- on purchase and sale of various lands by claiming higher purchase price than that of the price mentioned in the purchase agreements while computing the capital gain. The AO should have made the verification of sales and purchase....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and cross verifications with respect to transactions entered into by the assessee and the income earned by him from these transactions. The above omissions on the part of the AO rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, he issued a notice u/s.263 of the I.T. Act to the assessee calling for his response. 5. The assessee in his response submitted that both transactions mentioned in the notice u/s.263 were explained by him during the assessment proceedings with supporting documents. These transactions were carried out by him jointly with Shri Sunil T. Patil. The sale consideration was received by both parties separately by 2 separate demand drafts. Shri Sunil T. Patil has declared ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... As per the details submitted during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s. Krupa Land Ltd. and the incriminating evidences gathered during the search and survey operations, it is seen that unaccounted cash payments of Rs. 9,28,72,500/- were made by M/s. Krupa Land Ltd to Shri Mansukh Timbadia (i.e. the assessee), for purchase of lands in Nevali village. The assessee has not offered the amount for taxation. In view of the above, the CIT held that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore this is a fit case for invoking jurisdiction u/s.263. Accordingly, he set aside the order of the AO passed u/s.143(3) on 18-11-2011 with a direction to redo the assessment denovo after a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....land to Shri Naidu Adikeshavulu Reddy. Referring to the deed of conveyance placed at pages 43 to 49 she submitted that the assessee along with Shri Sunil T. Patil is the confirming party for the deed of conveyance between M/s. Ekdanta Land Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Saastha Warehousing Ltd. Thus, in all the purchase and sale transactions the assessee has entered into such transactions along with Shri Sunil T. Patil. Therefore, it cannot be said that the entire income belonged to the assessee. She submitted that the sale considerations were also received by demand drafts separately by the 2 persons in equal share. Therefore, the assessee had correctly shown his share of capital gain which has been accepted by the AO and therefore the same is in orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mbay Pvt. Ltd. reported in 323 ITR 632 10. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in 332 ITR 1679 11. CIT Vs. Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) 12. Jai Kumar Kankaria Vs. CIT reported in 251 ITR 707 10. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld.CIT . 11. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find the Ld.CIT invoked jurisdiction u/s.263 on two issues, i.e. (i) instead of showing the entire sale proceeds the assessee has shown only 50% of the sale proceeds as his income which the AO failed to verify and (ii) the AO has not made proper enquiries regardi....