9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion of law is involved in these appeals. The facts have, however, been taken from Income Tax Appeal No. 373 of 2006. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short "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 onu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal erred in placing initial onus upon the Revenue to establish that the deposits made by the assessee were the undisclosed income of the assessee. According to the learned counsel, 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. It was noticed by the assessing officer that two receipts of Rs. 17,00,000/- each, on 21.7.1999 and 2.8.1999, had been 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
