TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 2379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal, Chandigarh Bench 'B', Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 549/Chd/2013 for the assessment year 2009- 10, claiming the following substantial question of law:- Whether ITAT has erred in not appreciating that once the entries appearing on any seized document in the course of search are credible and shows that outstanding liability of the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,28,89,362/- was in respect of an investment and by virtue of section 69 of the Act should have been treated as income and could not have been restricted to part payment? 3. Put short, the facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. A search operation under Section 132(1) of the Act was condu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the source of the said amount. It was further submitted that the outstanding liability of the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,28,89,362/- was an investment and the same had to be treated as income and could not have been restricted to part payment of Rs. 59,43,115/-. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the revenue, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The CIT(A) had partially accepted the contention of the assessee and had deleted the amount of Rs. 59,43,115/- out of addition of Rs. 1,28,89,362/- made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee had made the payment of Rs. 46,43,115/- in addition to Rs. 13,00,000/- to Mr. Monga whereas the remaining amount was still outstanding in the books of account of the assessee. The re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduced by the Assessing Officer at pages 3 to 11 of the assessment order. The page 67 of A-2 is a letter written by one Shri Anil Monga to Shri Lalit Jindal on 10.08.2008. The said letter talks of an account with approximate figures of the Mall building price and rest of the figures in respect of the Ashreya Studio Apartments, Hill View & M-1 Plaza. The letter further talks about advance lying with Mr. Lalit Jindal of Rs. 4,50,000/-. The person writing the letter has concluded by stating "Total receivable from you- Rs. 1,28,89,362/-, less already received from you - Rs. 13,00,000/- and balance due from you Rs. 1,15,89,362/-." To the said letter, Mr. Monga has further attached annexures i.e. transaction letter marked as (a) to (e) which in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mella Infracom. However, the assessee failed to co-relate the total entries. The perusal of the various documents reflect the financial transactions in relation to various projects and in view of the covering letter which is very categorical in stating that the total amount receivable from the assessee was Rs. 1,28,89,362/- against which sum of Rs. 13 lacs was already received and the balance due from the assessee was Rs. 1,15,89,362/-. The presumption is to be drawn against the assessee where the assessee has failed to discharge the onus cast upon him. However, we are in conformity with the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in restricting the addition to Rs. 59,43,115/-, as against addition of Rs. 1,28,69,362/- made by the Asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bers from the assessee vide letter dated 10.08.2008. Further sum of Rs. 13,00,000/- is mentioned in the said letter placed at page 67 as having been received by him. In totality thus the total payments made by the assessee were of Rs. 46,43,115/- + Rs. 13,00,000/- and the addition is to be restricted to Rs. 59,43,115/- as held by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The balance being the amount payable by the assessee to Shri Monga and his family members is not includible as income of the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the addition of Rs. 59,43,115/- in the hands of the assessee and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the revenue in this regard." 7. A perusal of the above shows that the CIT(A) restricted th....