https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464124 ITAT allowed the taxpayer's appeal, holding that the Rs.46,00,000 deposited was plausibly sale consideration for agricultural land and could not be treated as unexplained income. The Tribunal found the AO partly discredited documentary evidence, failed to show any alternate income source, and did not specify a charging section when making the addition under s.147. Applying precedent, the bench ruled the addition unsustainable and required the amount to be treated as agricultural proceeds (exempt), setting aside the assessment addition. en-us Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Oct 2025 20:17:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464124 ITAT allowed the taxpayer's appeal, holding that the Rs.46,00,000 deposited was plausibly sale consideration for agricultural land and could not be treated as unexplained income. The Tribunal found the AO partly discredited documentary evidence, failed to show any alternate income source, and did not specify a charging section when making the addition under s.147. Applying precedent, the bench ruled the addition unsustainable and required the amount to be treated as agricultural proceeds (exempt), setting aside the assessment addition. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464124