DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. NEOTECH EDUCATION FOUNDATION, VADODARA

69D of the Act. As such, it is the onus of the revenue to bring out the necessary evidence to hold that the assessee has made investments in the impugned land which is unexplained under the provisions of section 69B of the Act. Likewise, the contents of the email having attachments of page 157 and 158 were found from

SHRI SHAILESH S. PATEL,,PALANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5,, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3063/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

69D). ITA No. 3063/Ahd/16 [Shailesh S. Patel vs.ITO] AY 2012-13 - 4 - 2. I have therefore, reason to believe that income chargeable to tax exceeding Rs.1,22,24,800/- has escaped assessment for A.Y. 2012-13 and intend to reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to the notice