TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the bank account of the assessee but was withdrawn in cash and thereafter there was no trace of the said amount. In case the transaction was so transparent, the money should have been returned by cheque in the same manner as it was received but this was not so. The petitioner was also asked to provide the original MOU and compromise deeds and other such documents. He had expressed his inability to produce the originals. The assessee had failed to produce sufficient material either before the Assessing Officer or CIT(C) in revisional proceedings on the basis thereof a finding of fact could have been returned in favour of the petitioner. The factual matrix was required to be established by producing material evidence in that regard befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvolved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a resident of Village Issapur, Tehsil Derabassi, Mohali. An agreement was entered amongst West Point Properties Pvt. Limited, New Delhi dated 27.2.2006, Annexure P.1 through Harish Bhasin, Director and second party namely S.S.Empires Pvt. Limited, Pritam Singh and Harjinder Kaur etc. for the purchase of 50 acres agricultural land at Village Rampur Kalan Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali at the rate of ₹ 15.25 lacs per acre. An amount of ₹ 75 lacs was transferred by West Point Properties Pvt. Limited on 19.4.2006, Annexure P.2 through Cheque No.4263 favouring Pritam Singh son of Dalbir Singh, r/o Village Jhuharkhera Tehsil Abohar, District Ferozepur from UTI Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngh being bank to bank transfer. Action of search under section 132 of the Act was undertaken on 10.8.2006 on various companies and individuals whereby the petitioner was covered under Section 132A of the Act. The Axis Bank account of the petitioner was closed on 12.8.2006 since the same was containing none other transactions except the aforesaid duly explained through source to source and there being disputes amongst the purchasing party namely West Point Properties Pvt. Limited and Pritam Singh. It was mutually decided and agreed in accordance with the compromise deed on 7.10.2006 Annexure P.3 to refund an amount of ₹ 3.65 crores out of which ₹ 1.20 crores was in the hands of the petitioner and the said amount was returned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008 which was dismissed on 31.3.2010, Annexure P.6. The appeal dated 29.7.2009 filed by the petitioner against penalty was dismissed and the levy of penalty was upheld by the CIT (Appeals) vide order dated 2.6.2011, Annexure P.7. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 26.9.2013,Annexure P.8, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The petitioner approached this Court through ITA No.112 of 2014. On 31.7.2014, Annexure P.9, the petitioner filed RTI application praying for supply of records relatable for the assessment. The same was transferred to the ACIT, by letter dated 7.8.2014. The information was refused by DCIT on 12.8.2014. The petitioner filed appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was so transparent, the money should have been returned by cheque in the same manner as it was received but this was not so. The petitioner was also asked to provide the original MOU and compromise deeds and other such documents. He had expressed his inability to produce the originals. 6. The assessee had failed to produce sufficient material either before the Assessing Officer or CIT(C) in revisional proceedings on the basis thereof a finding of fact could have been returned in favour of the petitioner. The factual matrix was required to be established by producing material evidence in that regard before the assessing authority or the revisional authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to give any one good or suffici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adequate alternative remedy, (ii) who is guilty of delay which is unexplained, (iii) who is guilty of conduct disentitling him to relief, (iv) where the interest of justice do not require that relief should be granted, (v) where the petitioner raises a disputed question of fact, (vi) where the grant of writ would be futile, and (vii) where the impugned law has not come into force. It would follow from the above that the grant or refusal of a writ is within the judicial discretion of the Court and that indeed is the line which divides the extra ordinary remedy from the ordinary one by of a civil suit. (Emphasis supplied). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Cadre Authority and another v. K.S.Bajpal and others, (1990) (Suppl.) SCC 713, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
