2016 (6) TMI 744

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Pravin P Panchal, Advocate ORDER ( 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 yea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of them being diversion of the sale consideration 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that M/s. Pushpadanta Infrastructure Ltd. had not acquired 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 ve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r of the land in question. He executed a sale deed in favour 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 ....