TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Late appeal due to illness, land sale income as business, unexplained credit addition upheld. Assessee's contentions dismissed. Appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>Rajan N. Goel Versus ACIT, Panvel Circle, Panvel</h3> Rajan N. Goel Versus ACIT, Panvel Circle, Panvel - TMI Issues: Delay in filing appeal, Nature of income from sale of land, Addition of unexplained cash creditDelay in filing appeal:The appeal was filed with a delay of 137 days, attributed to the illness of the brother of the assessee who handled accounts and tax matters. Medical records were submitted in support of the delay, and it was found to be caused by medical exigencies. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for hearing.Nature of income from sale of land:The assessee, engaged in transport, warehousing, and land dealings, sold land to M/s. MTC Business Pvt. Ltd., earning a profit of Rs. 1,15,00,000 in the relevant period. The Assessing Officer treated this profit as business income, along with an addition of Rs. 21,75,499 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The assessee contended that the land sold was agricultural and not a capital asset, thus not liable for capital gains tax. Additionally, even if considered a capital asset, the sale proceeds were reinvested in agricultural land, making the assessee eligible for deduction under section 54B.Addition of unexplained cash credit:The Assessing Officer made an addition under section 68 as unexplained cash credit, which the assessee failed to explain adequately. The onus was on the assessee to prove the genuineness, identity, and creditworthiness of the transactions and creditors, which was not discharged. The authorities upheld this addition, as the assessee could not provide sufficient details to support their claim.In the final decision, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the findings of the authorities below. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had detailed reasons for rejecting the assessee's claims, which were not substantiated by the assessee during the proceedings. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order and upheld the decision to dismiss the appeal, resulting in the appeal of the assessee being dismissed.
TaxTMI 