Tribunal Partially Allows Tax Appeal: Agricultural Income Attributed; Demonetization Deposits Deemed Unexplained Income.

The tax appeal concerning the assessment year 2009-10 was partly allowed by the ITAT, attributing a portion of cash deposits to agricultural income due to insufficient evidence of other income sources. For the 2017-2018 assessment year, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision to treat cash deposits during demonetization as "unexplained income," dismissing the appeal without costs, as no substantial questions of law were identified.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2009-10.
2. Treatment of cash deposits during demonetization in 2016 as "unexplained income" for the assessment year 2017-2018.

Analysis:
1. The tax appeal was filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2009-10. The Tribunal partly allowed and partly rejected the appeal. The appellant claimed agricultural income but failed to provide evidence to support it. The appellant also could not prove money lending business activities with necessary evidence. The Tribunal considered the appellant's explanation regarding cash deposits but found insufficient evidence. However, based on the agricultural income declared for the previous two financial years, the Tribunal attributed a portion towards savings, allowing relief for a portion of the cash deposits while sustaining the rest. The appeal was partly allowed based on this analysis.

2. For the assessment year 2017-2018, the appellant declared income and agricultural income in the return filed. However, cash deposits made during demonetization were treated as "unexplained income." The appellant argued that the proceedings were limited to the source of cash deposits during demonetization and contended that treating all cash deposits as unexplained income was unwarranted. The appellant relied on various court decisions to support their case. The court reviewed the arguments and found no substantial questions of law for consideration in the appeal. The dispute over cash deposits during demonetization was upheld, and the Tribunal's order was found to be without any infirmity. Consequently, the tax appeal was dismissed without costs.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the tax appeal against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for different assessment years, highlighting the key arguments and decisions made by the court in each case.

---