Appeal allowed for fresh consideration of Long Term Capital Gain & unexplained income.

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes in both issues, with the matters remitted to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration. The appellant was granted the opportunity to present additional evidence and be heard regarding the addition of Long Term Capital Gain and cash deposits as unexplained income. The decision emphasized the importance of proper consideration of the appellant's contentions and evidence by the Revenue, ensuring a thorough reevaluation of the issues at hand.

---

---

Issues:
1. Addition of Long Term Capital Gain
2. Addition of cash deposited to bank as unexplained unaccounted income

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of Long Term Capital Gain
The appellant sold a joint property during the relevant year for Rs. 2,62,00,000, with the appellant's share being one half. The Long Term Capital Gain arising from this sale was the primary issue. The appellant claimed a deduction under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, resulting in a Long Term Capital Gain of NIL due to investment in a new residential house. However, the assessing officer (AO) determined that the appellant owned 69% of the property, not 50%, based on which the sale consideration was taken at Rs. 1,81,00,000. The appellant failed to provide supporting details or evidence to substantiate the claim of 50% ownership, citing family disputes and the unavailability of documents previously held by the accountant. Additional documents supporting the appellant's claim were submitted during the appeal, but as the lower authorities did not have the opportunity to review them, the matter was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the appellant a chance to present evidence and be heard.

Issue 2: Addition of Cash Deposits as Unexplained Income
The second issue revolved around the addition of cash deposits totaling Rs. 14,36,000 to the bank as unexplained unaccounted income. The appellant argued that the cash deposits were made from cash withdrawals, but the Revenue contended that the cash flow statements did not align, questioning how cash could be withdrawn from and deposited back into the bank. The appellant's written submissions and supporting documents were not adequately considered by the Revenue. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the AO for a fresh review, emphasizing the need for proper consideration of the appellant's contentions and evidence. The decision to remit the issue was based on the need for a thorough reevaluation by the Revenue, providing the appellant with an opportunity to present additional evidence during the reconsideration process.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes in both issues, with the matters being remitted to the AO for fresh consideration, ensuring the appellant's right to be heard and present relevant evidence.

---