TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 405
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 26th September 2014. On the said ground alone the said addition of Rs. 1,00,93,764/- be deleted and impugned order be quashed. 2.2 Without prejudice, assuming without admitting that the impugned addition of Rs. 1,00,93,764/- was required to be made, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the very fact that the Respondent has not even considered the submissions made by the Appellant in respect of re-investment of capital gains in purchase of another agricultural land and merely confirmed that the re-investment made is not made within prescribed period of 2 years. Therefore, the impugned Assessment Order as well as Appeal Order be quashed to the extent of addition of long term capital gain of Rs. 1,00,93,764/-. 2.4 The learned CIT(A) has erred in not admitting the additional evidence to justify incurrence of expenditure in re-investment of proceeds from sale of agricultural land. 2.5 The reasons of CIT(A) for rejection of admission evidence are incorrect, contrary to facts, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3. Cash Deposits of Rs. 43,39,000/- treated as unexplained and invocation of provisions of Section 69A of the Act: 3.1. The learned CIT(A) has erred i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any details to prove the veracity of his submissions. The Assessee has not provided any confirmation or any documents/contract agreements from his clients to prove that he has undertaken and performed the contract work. The Assessee has also not submitted the statement of affairs of his business to support the income earned. Hence, the Assessee's submission that he has received cash from contract receipts is not acceptable. 2.7 The Ld.AO thus issued the SCN dated 14.11.2019 calling upon the assessee as to why the cash deposited and the income from the sale of immovable property should not be brought to tax. 2.8 The Ld.AO observed that assessee deposited cash to the extent of Rs. 45,39,000/- in his bank accounts of Canara Bank and State Bank of India during the F.Y. 2016-17. An amount of Rs. 37,00,000/- has been deposited to his Canara Bank account No.0437101020756 and Rs. 8,39,000/- in his State Bank of India account No. 64002611149 during the F.Y. 2016-17. He thus held that the source of cash remains unexplained. The Ld.AO gave benefit of the basic exemption towards non pursuit of enquiry in respect of the source of cash deposited to the extent of Rs. 2 lakhs, the balance su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he head "Income from Long Term Capital Gain". 2.11 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 2.12 The Ld.CIT(A) observed and held as under: "7.5 In the light of above facts and discussion and the legal precedents submitted by the appellant in his written submission, I have come to the conclusion that there are two main issues for determination:- a. Whether the sale of land could have been investigated by the AO under the limited scope of scrutiny? b. Whether the LTCG on the sale of such land was entitled to exemption u/s 54 B or 54 F as claimed by the appellant. 7.6 On the first issue; the AO has started his enquiry from trying to find the source of the cash deposits in the appellant's bank accounts and he has limited enquiry to the same. The deposits in the bank accounts of the appellant included deposits of sale proceeds of the land which are claimed to have been reinvested transaction within the 2 year window provided. 7.7 Thus AO has rightly held that the exemption u/s 54 B or 54 F was not eligible as the new asset has not been purchased within the time period allowed as per IT Act and also failed to submit the requ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowing the deduction claimed u/s. 54F. We direct the Ld.AO to delete the disallowance so made. Accordingly, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee stands allowed. 5. Ground no. 3: 5.1 The next issue in appeal is regarding cash deposited during the financial year relevant to Assessment Year under consideration of Rs. 41,19,500/- u/s. 69. The Ld.AO disallowed Rs. 41,19,500/- as per the rates applicable u/s. 115BBE of Income from business deposited as cash allegedly made prior to the demonetisation period. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 5.2 Before the Ld.CIT(A), assessee failed to furnish necessary evidence in support of the claim that the sum of Rs. 41,19,500/- represents sale proceeds of business and therefore this addition so made was upheld. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5.3 The Ld.DR on the contrary, submitted that the cash has been deposited during the period when demonetisation was declared and therefore necessary verification has to be carried out in accordance with the circulars issued by the CBDT. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light....