https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445091 ITAT Visakhapatnam dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding unexplained advance payment for land development. The assessee claimed the advance was funded through agricultural income, HUF savings, and accumulated funds but failed to provide supporting evidence. AO estimated agricultural income at Rs. 1,67,000 based on actual land holdings of 16.77 acres versus claimed 27.50 acres, treating the difference of Rs. 3,33,000 as unexplained expenditure under section 68. The assessee's post-survey ITR filing claiming Rs. 3,10,000 agricultural income was deemed an afterthought, with discrepancies in receipts and payment accounts remaining unexplained. en-us Wed, 18 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Oct 2023 21:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445091 ITAT Visakhapatnam dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding unexplained advance payment for land development. The assessee claimed the advance was funded through agricultural income, HUF savings, and accumulated funds but failed to provide supporting evidence. AO estimated agricultural income at Rs. 1,67,000 based on actual land holdings of 16.77 acres versus claimed 27.50 acres, treating the difference of Rs. 3,33,000 as unexplained expenditure under section 68. The assessee's post-survey ITR filing claiming Rs. 3,10,000 agricultural income was deemed an afterthought, with discrepancies in receipts and payment accounts remaining unexplained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445091