- (1.)This order will dispose of IT Appeal Nos. 169 to 174 of 2005. The facts are being taken from IT Appeal No. 170 of 2005.
(2.)This is an appeal filed by the assessee raising following substantial questions of law, arising out of common order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B' (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA Nos. 310/Chd/2001 and 309/Chd/2001, dt. 10th March, 2004, for the asst. yr. 1991 92:
(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has erred in law in not considering the issue regarding examining the creditors, who had advanced the money to the assessee for booking the property, whereas specific directions were given in order passed under Section 144A of IT Act, 1961. (ii) Without prejudice to the above, whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has committed an error of jurisdiction in holding that the surrender before the IT Department against the unexplained investment noticed during search proceeding was correctly adjusted during the immediately following year.

(3.)Brief facts of the case are that the search and seizure operation was conducted at the business premises of M/s Kala Emporium, M/s Bansal Brothers and M/s Uphar Saree Centre on 19th May, 1992. During the search, certain documents were seized, which showed that the assessee along with other coowners had constructed and sold shops in the form of shopping Complex at Delhi. The property on which the shopping complex was constructed was purchased by the co-owners on 26th Nov., 1987 for a sum of Rs. 5,17,690 and a sum of Rs. 7,39,680 was spent on construction during the year under assessment, i.e., asst. yr. 1991-92. Construction continued during the next two years and Rs. 16,94,310 and Rs. 3,09,500 were spent during asst. yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94. A surrender of Rs. 10 lakhs was made for asst. yr. 1992-93 against investment in construction. No surrender was made for asst. yr. 1991 92. As per entry recorded at p. 5 of the document titled 'Manju Register' which was impounded by the AO during the course of search during asst. yr. 1992-93, a sum of Rs. 7,39,680 was invested from 12th Oct., 1990 to 31st March, 1991 on construction and l/4th of the share of the assessee in the said investment comes to Rs. 1,84,920. It was further found that though the investment was made during the financial year 1990-91, but there was no withdrawal from the capital account. The plea of the assessee was that this investment was funded out of advance money received in cash from the prospective buyers who had booked shops in the shopping complex. A total of Rs. 7,40,000 was stated to have been received during the year in question. It was pleaded that the amount was received through Mr. Sukhmal Jain, a property dealer at Delhi, through whom the shops were booked. However, no details, etc., were furnished. The assessee even could not produce Mr. Sukhmal Jain to substantiate his plea. The affidavit got from Mr. Sukhmal Jain was rejected by the AO because of inconsistency noticed therein. Accordingly, the investment was treated as unexplained and added to the income of the assessee.