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>ITAT remands case for fresh assessment of unexplained cash deposits and agricultural income claims lacking proper evidence</h1> <h3>Mr. Dnyaneshwar Baburao Kathe Versus ITO, Ward-1 (3), Pune</h3> Mr. Dnyaneshwar Baburao Kathe Versus ITO, Ward-1 (3), Pune - TMI Issues:1. Addition of cash deposits in savings bank account as unexplained income.2. Addition of long term capital gain on sale of agricultural land.3. Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 54F of the Income Tax Act.Analysis:1. Cash Deposits in Savings Bank Account:The appellant contested the addition of Rs. 31,58,740 as unexplained income from cash deposits in the savings bank account, arguing that the funds were proceeds from agriculture sales. The appellant, an agriculturist, presented evidence of agricultural activities, including production of export-quality roses, tomatoes, and wheat. The appellant claimed that the entire amount deposited in the bank was from the sale of agricultural produce. The appellant provided 7/12 extracts and statistical data reports to support the agricultural income claim. The appellant also highlighted previous cases where similar estimates of agricultural income were accepted. The Tribunal noted the ex-parte assessment and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for proper substantiation of agricultural income.2. Long Term Capital Gain on Sale of Agricultural Land:Regarding the addition of Rs. 39,32,662 as long term capital gain on the sale of agricultural land, the appellant argued that the land was not a capital asset as it was situated more than 8 kilometers from the nearest municipality. The appellant provided a certificate from the Public Works Department stating the distance from the municipality. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the sale proceeds were invested in a residential building, making them eligible for deduction under section 54F. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the assessment, including a change in the fair market value reported by the Assessing Officer in the remand report. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reevaluate the capital gain issue, considering the evidence presented by the appellant and providing a fair opportunity for the appellant to respond.3. Disallowance of Deduction under Section 54F:The appellant challenged the disallowance of the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Income Tax Act. The appellant provided additional evidence, including a certificate and proposed plan for a residential house, to support the claim. The Tribunal noted the discrepancies in the assessment regarding the valuation of the property and the denial of the deduction under section 54F. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the appellant's claim for deduction under section 54F, taking into account the evidence provided.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for proper substantiation of agricultural income and a fair evaluation of the capital gain and deduction claims.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
