2010 (12) TMI 1355

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hort "the Act") has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 16.11.2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (in short "the Tribunal") in ITA No. 507/Chandi/2002, relating to the assessment year 2000- 01. The appeal was admitted on 10.11.2006 for determination of the following substantial question of law by this Court: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the order of the CIT (A), as the assessee has failed to discharge his onus in proving the source of funds with documentary evidence?" The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication and as narrated in the appeal, are that the assessee had deposited Rs. 22,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the total deposits made by the assessee were of Rs. 60,80,000/-, out of which only Rs. 24,00,000/- on account of six registered sale deeds of Rs. 4,00,000/- each, had been satisfactorily explained. The balance amount of Rs. 36,80,000/- (i.e. Rs. 60,80,000/- less Rs. 24,00,000/-) was an undisclosed income as the assessee had failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the said amount. It was further argued that the assessee had failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim that the amounts had been received on account of sale of land and the assessing officer was, thus, justified in assessing the same as unexplained income and the CIT(A) and the Tribunal had erred in reversing the said finding. The point for consid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een the result of an after-thought inasmuch as the assessee could not offer any explanation to justify the said amounts, more particularly, when it was not the part of the sale consideration in the registered sale deeds. Reference was also made to the statement of Sh. Navraj, the vendee where he was asked to explain the facts relating to an amount of Rs.17,00,000/- handed over to the assessee on 21.7.1999, but he failed to give any satisfactory reply and details in that regard. Similarly, as regards receipt of Rs. 17,00,000/- on 2.8.1999, he had stated that he did not recognise his signature on the receipt in question as the same differed and he would confirm only after seeing the receipt taken from Shri Jagtar Singh, the assessee. He was u....