TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... astructure Ltd. should have received such sale consideration. No agreement to sale, no lease document, no other document showing even in remote manner M/s. Pushpadanta Infrastructure Ltd. having acquired any right, title or interest in the land has ever come on record. It is not even stated that M/s. Pushpadanta Infrastructure Ltd. legally or otherwise was in possession of the land due to which such sale consideration had to be diverted to it. The Revenue Authorities, therefore, correctly disbelieved the genuineness of payment to M/s. Pushpadanta Infrastructure Ltd. and treated it as diversion of income. - Special Civil Application No. 8974 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 10-6-2016 - Akil Kureshi And A. J. Shastri, JJ. For the Petitioner : M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 paid to a third party where the petitioner himself was the owner of land in question. The Assessing Officer, therefore, treated it as a sham transaction and believed that there was diversion of income through such impermissible means. He, therefore, taxed such amount in the hands of the petitioner. 4. The order of assessment was challenged by the petitioner before the Commissioner by filing revision petition under Section 264 of the Act. The Commissioner dismissed the petition by the impugned order. He noted that the petitioner had not brought any documentary e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Kusumben Doshi. As per the sale deed, the petitioner received only ₹ 58.68 lacs by way of sale consideration whereas M/s. Pushpadanta Infrastructure Ltd., as the confirming party, received ₹ 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 Ltd. The petitioner has not been able to produce before the Revenue Authorities or even before us any reason why M/s. Pushpadanta Infrastructure Ltd. should have received such sale consideration. No agreement to sale, no lease document, no other document showing even in remote manner M/s. Pushpadanta Infrastructure Ltd. having acquired any right, title or interest in the land has ever come on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
