Land sale, unexplained investment, agricultural income disputes decided by ITAT; CIT (A) decisions set aside for Rule 46A violation.

The case involved disputes regarding the treatment of land sale as agricultural income, addition of unexplained investment, treatment of agricultural income, addition of unexplained deposits, and compliance with Rule 46A of I.T. Rules. The ITAT set aside the decisions of the CIT (A) in all issues due to failure to verify evidence and violation of Rule 46A, remanding the case to the AO for a fresh assessment in each instance.

---

---

Issues:
1. Treatment of land sale as agricultural income
2. Addition of unexplained investment
3. Treatment of agricultural income
4. Addition of unexplained deposits
5. Compliance with Rule 46A of I.T. Rules

Issue 1: Treatment of land sale as agricultural income
The appellant argued that the land was converted into plots and sold as a trade venture, not as agricultural land. The AO disallowed the agricultural income offered by the assessee due to lack of evidence and treated it as income from other sources. The CIT (A) deleted the addition, relying on previous acceptance of agricultural income. The ITAT found the CIT (A) did not verify evidence or call for a remand report, violating Rule 46A. The case was set aside for the AO to re-adjudicate after the assessee submits all relevant information.

Issue 2: Addition of unexplained investment
The AO disallowed a claim of long-term borrowings due to lack of confirmation letters on genuineness. The appellant argued that all information was submitted to both the AO and CIT (A). The ITAT found the CIT (A) did not verify evidence, violating Rule 46A. The case was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.

Issue 3: Treatment of agricultural income
The AO treated the agricultural income as income from other sources due to lack of evidence. The CIT (A) deleted the addition based on previous acceptance of agricultural income. The ITAT found the CIT (A) did not verify evidence, violating Rule 46A. The case was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.

Issue 4: Addition of unexplained deposits
The AO treated certain deposits as unexplained income due to lack of evidence of business activity. The CIT (A) deleted the addition. The ITAT found the CIT (A) did not verify evidence, violating Rule 46A. The case was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.

Issue 5: Compliance with Rule 46A of I.T. Rules
The ITAT found that the CIT (A) did not verify evidence or call for a remand report, violating Rule 46A. The case was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.

---