Himanshu Kukreja v. PCIT (2023) 290 Taxman 453 (Uttarakhand) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Unexplained investments-Assessing Officer has not enquired into any documentary evidence-Revision was held to be justified. [S. 69]

The Tribunal has upheld the revision order passed by the Commissioner. On appeal the Court held that the assessee had not submitted bank statements of either himself or society to specify the nature of the transaction made for the purchase of property and the source thereof-Moreover, assessee had neither submitted any document stating that property had been subsequently transferred to society nor any statement of current ownership of property and status thereof in support of his claim that property belonged to society. Further, during assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer had also not enquired into or called for any documentary evidence relevant to the above issues. Order of Tribunal upheld.  (AY. 2016-17)