RAMBILAS RADHAKISHAN JOSHI,BHAYANDER vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), THANE, THANE

3. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in upholding addition of Rs.25,87,500/ The Hon. CIT (A) erred in upholding addition of Rs.25,87,500/ The Hon. CIT (A) erred in upholding addition of Rs.25,87,500/- as short-term capital gain arising on sale of agricultural land at village term capital gain arising on sale of agricultural land at village term capital gain arising on sale of agricultural land at village Dantiwada, Dis Dantiwada, Dist. Jodhpur, Rajasthan, not appreciating that (i) The land sold was "agricultural land covered by the exception The land sold was "agricultural land covered by the exception The land sold was "agricultural land covered by the exception contained in section 2(14)(iii) of the I.T. Act 1961, and that the contained in section 2(14)(iii) of the I.T. Act 1961, and that the contained in section 2(14)(iii) of the I.T. Act 1961, and that the Id AO had taken adverse view based on erroneous assumption Id AO had taken adverse view based on erroneous assumption Id AO had taken adverse view based on erroneous assumption that the agricultural l that the agricultural land was situated in District Pali, whereas and was situated in District Pali, whereas the appellant's land was situated in District Jodhpur. the appellant's land was situated in District Jodhpur. the appellant's land was situated in District Jodhpur. (ii) The gains arising on sale of said agricultural land inherited by The gains arising on sale of said agricultural land inherited by The gains arising on sale of said agricultural land inherited by the appellant from his father was long term in nature and not the appellant from his father was long term in nature and not the appellant from his father was long term in nature and not short term as held by the Id AO short term as held by the Id AO. (iii) The addition without granting the deduction for indexed cost of The addition without granting the deduction for indexed cost of The addition without granting the deduction for indexed cost of acquisition as per section 48 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was acquisition as per section 48 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was acquisition as per section 48 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was unjustified. unjustified.

4. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in upholding addition of Rs.9,09,090/ The Hon. CIT (A) erred in upholding addition of Rs.9,09,090/- made The Hon. CIT (A) erred in upholding addition of Rs.9,09,090/ on account of conveyance dt. 16.12.2010 executed b on account of conveyance dt. 16.12.2010 executed by the power of y the power of attorney holder of the appellant to give effect to land sold by the father attorney holder of the appellant to give effect to land sold by the father attorney holder of the appellant to give effect to land sold by the father of the appellant on 08.06.1982, not appreciating that in the year of the appellant on 08.06.1982, not appreciating that in the year of the appellant on 08.06.1982, not appreciating that in the year under appeal there was no transfer of asset warranting any addition under appeal there was no transfer of asset warranting any addition under appeal there was no transfer of asset warranting any addition as long term capital gains in th as long term capital gains in the hands of the appellant and that e hands of the appellant and that further (without prejudice) brining to tax sale consideration without further (without prejudice) brining to tax sale consideration without further (without prejudice) brining to tax sale consideration without grant of deduction for indexed cost of acquisition as per sec. 48 was grant of deduction for indexed cost of acquisition as per sec. 48 was grant of deduction for indexed cost of acquisition as per sec. 48 was not appropriate. not appropriate.

“6. Decision 6.1 Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 for Rs. 16,87,500/ 6.1 Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 for Rs. 16,87,500/- 6.1 Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 for Rs. 16,87,500/- In his submissions, appellant has stated that the agricultural land at In his submissions, appellant has stated that the agricultural land at In his submissions, appellant has stated that the agricultural land at Dantiwada was sold vide agreement dated 07.04.2010 for total Dantiwada was sold vide agreement dated 07.04.2010 for total Dantiwada was sold vide agreement dated 07.04.2010 for total consideration of Rs. 25,87,500/ consideration of Rs. 25,87,500/-. Further, he stated that as per family that as per family arrangement Rs. 9,00,000/ arrangement Rs. 9,00,000/- was paid to his brother Shri Jugal was paid to his brother Shri Jugal R.Joshi and the balance Rs. 16,87,500/ R.Joshi and the balance Rs. 16,87,500/- to the capital account of the to the capital account of the appellant as receipt from the estate of deceased Radhakrishan Joshi. appellant as receipt from the estate of deceased Radhakrishan Joshi. appellant as receipt from the estate of deceased Radhakrishan Joshi. Regarding this issue, appellant has Regarding this issue, appellant has produced the sale deed and Bank produced the sale deed and Bank pass book. No documentary evidence were produced to treat this pass book. No documentary evidence were produced to treat this pass book. No documentary evidence were produced to treat this amount Rs. 16,87,500/ amount Rs. 16,87,500/- as capital in the Balance sheet. In the as capital in the Balance sheet. In the absence of documentary evidence, I disallow this appeal. absence of documentary evidence, I disallow this appeal.

6.2 Unexplained credit entries in SB acco Unexplained credit entries in SB account for Rs. 7,39,294/ unt for Rs. 7,39,294/- In his submissions, appellant has stated the following submissions, appellant has stated the following explanation: explanation: Date Amount Explanation 13.01.2011 1,89,294/- Maturity proceeds of LIC policy Maturity proceeds of LIC policy 21.01.2011 4,50,000/- Advance received from brother Advance received from brother Subhash Joshi 15.02.2011 1,00,000/- Advance received from brother Advance received from brother Subhash Joshi Total 7,39,294/- From the documents submitted by the appellant, it is evident that the From the documents submitted by the appellant, it is evident that the From the documents submitted by the appellant, it is evident that the above said transactions have taken place. Regarding maturity above said transactions have taken place. Regarding maturity above said transactions have taken place. Regarding maturity proceeds of LIC policy, appellant has not produced proceeds of LIC policy, appellant has not produced satisfactory satisfactory evidence. Also, regarding advances from brother Subhash Joshi, he evidence. Also, regarding advances from brother Subhash Joshi, he evidence. Also, regarding advances from brother Subhash Joshi, he has submitted confirmation letter as per his books of accounts, but not has submitted confirmation letter as per his books of accounts, but not has submitted confirmation letter as per his books of accounts, but not submitted the relevant books of accounts. Hence, I disallow this submitted the relevant books of accounts. Hence, I disallow this submitted the relevant books of accounts. Hence, I disallow this appeal. 6.3 Short term capital gain of 6.3 Short term capital gain of Rs. 25,87,500/- In his submissions, appellant has produced a letter from the Sarpanch In his submissions, appellant has produced a letter from the Sarpanch In his submissions, appellant has produced a letter from the Sarpanch of Khatiyasani village stating that the land is situated 37 km away of Khatiyasani village stating that the land is situated 37 km away of Khatiyasani village stating that the land is situated 37 km away from Jodhpur and the land is used for agricultural purposes. from Jodhpur and the land is used for agricultural purposes. from Jodhpur and the land is used for agricultural purposes. The letter from the Sarpanch of Khatiyasa The letter from the Sarpanch of Khatiyasani village simply states that ni village simply states that the land is used for agricultural purposes, but didn't tell what crops the land is used for agricultural purposes, but didn't tell what crops the land is used for agricultural purposes, but didn't tell what crops are grown and the relevant period of the agricultural practices made are grown and the relevant period of the agricultural practices made are grown and the relevant period of the agricultural practices made as per Girdawari Girdawari document. document. In absence of of satisfactory satisfactory documents/evidences, I disallow documents/evidences, I disallow this appeal. 6.4 Long term Long term capital gain of Rs. 9,09,090/- In his submissions, In his submissions, appellant has stated that the land at Goddeo village, Bhayander, appellant has stated that the land at Goddeo village, Bhayander, appellant has stated that the land at Goddeo village, Bhayander, Thane was transferred to Smt Sitadevi R. Agarwal & 3 others by his Thane was transferred to Smt Sitadevi R. Agarwal & 3 others by his Thane was transferred to Smt Sitadevi R. Agarwal & 3 others by his late father Shri Radhakishan N. Joshi alongw late father Shri Radhakishan N. Joshi alongwith 5 ther co owners on 08.06.1982. Again this land was sold by Smt Sitadevi 08.06.1982. Again this land was sold by Smt Sitadevi R. Agarwal & 3 others to Smt. Manju R. Bhandari, Proprietor of M/s R. Agarwal & 3 others to Smt. Manju R. Bhandari, Proprietor of M/s R. Agarwal & 3 others to Smt. Manju R. Bhandari, Proprietor of M/s M.R.Enterprises vide agreement dated 31.03.2005. Again this land M.R.Enterprises vide agreement dated 31.03.2005. Again this land M.R.Enterprises vide agreement dated 31.03.2005. Again this land was sold by Smt Manju R. Bhandari to Shri was sold by Smt Manju R. Bhandari to Shri Kiranraj Uttamchand Kiranraj Uttamchand Birawat vide agreement dated 13.12.2010. Further he states that, as Birawat vide agreement dated 13.12.2010. Further he states that, as Birawat vide agreement dated 13.12.2010. Further he states that, as per the agreement, the entire consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/ per the agreement, the entire consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/ per the agreement, the entire consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was received by the last holder of the land i.e. Smt Manju R. Bhandari. received by the last holder of the land i.e. Smt Manju R. Bhandari. received by the last holder of the land i.e. Smt Manju R. Bhandari. Deed dated 13.12.2010 states th Deed dated 13.12.2010 states that Rambilas Radhakishan Joshi at Rambilas Radhakishan Joshi & 5 others are legal heirs and representatives of late Shri Radhakishan others are legal heirs and representatives of late Shri Radhakishan others are legal heirs and representatives of late Shri Radhakishan N. Joshi and Smt Manju R. Bhandari is their Power of attorney i.e Joshi and Smt Manju R. Bhandari is their Power of attorney i.e Joshi and Smt Manju R. Bhandari is their Power of attorney i.e confirming party of the sale proceed. Hence, I uphold the stand of confirming party of the sale proceed. Hence, I uphold the stand of confirming party of the sale proceed. Hence, I uphold the stand of Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer.”

3.2 We find that the addition for the unexplained cash credit of We find that the addition for the unexplained cash credit of We find that the addition for the unexplained cash credit of Rs.16,87,500/- has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in absence of any documentary evidence filed by the assessee either before the any documentary evidence filed by the assessee either before the any documentary evidence filed by the assessee either before the AO or before the Ld. CIT(A). The next addition for unexplained AO or before the Ld. CIT(A). The next addition for unexplaine AO or before the Ld. CIT(A). The next addition for unexplaine credit in saving bank account for Rs.7,39,294/ credit in saving bank account for Rs.7,39,294/- has also been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) for lack of satisfactory documentary upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) for lack of satisfactory documentary upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) for lack of satisfactory documentary evidence. Similarly, the addition for sale of land treating the same evidence. Similarly, the addition for sale of land treating the same evidence. Similarly, the addition for sale of land treating the same as short term capital gain amounting to Rs.25,87,500/- has been as short term capital gain amounting to Rs.25,87,500/ as short term capital gain amounting to Rs.25,87,500/ sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) for lack of documentary evidence. The sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) for lack of documentary evidence. sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) for lack of documentary evidence. assessee was required to justify by way of certificate from the Land assessee was required to justify by way of certificate from the Land assessee was required to justify by way of certificate from the Land Revenue Authority as to whether the land was used to agricultural Revenue Authority as to whether the land was used to agricultural Revenue Authority as to whether the land was used to agricultural purposes. Whereas the assessee filed certificate fro purposes. Whereas the assessee filed certificate from a m a ‘Sarpanch’ of ‘Khatiyasani’ village which has been rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). village which has been rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). village which has been rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we do not find any infirmi e do not find any infirmity in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) ty in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the claim of the assessee of the land as agricultural the claim of the assessee of the land as agricultural the claim of the assessee of the land as agricultural land due to absence of satisfactory land due to absence of satisfactory documentary evidence from the documentary evidence from the Land Revenue Authority. Further, the addition for long term capital Land Revenue Authority. Further, the addition for long term capital Land Revenue Authority. Further, the addition for long term capital gain on land of Rs.9,09,090/ land of Rs.9,09,090/- has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) for the reason that in lease deed dated 13.12.2010 the seller party for the reason that in lease deed dated 13.12.2010 the seller party for the reason that in lease deed dated 13.12.2010 the seller party is the assessee and fi is the assessee and five others representing as legal heirs ve others representing as legal heirs of Late Shri Radhakishan N. Joshi and the party Shri Manju R. Bhandari is Shri Radhakishan N. Joshi and the party Shri Manju R. Bhandari is Shri Radhakishan N. Joshi and the party Shri Manju R. Bhandari is appearing only as a confirming party of sale proceed. Therefore, the appearing only as a confirming party of sale proceed. Therefore, the appearing only as a confirming party of sale proceed. Therefore, the additions have been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) for lack of the additions have been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) for lack of the additions have been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) for lack of the documentary evidence in support of claim of the assessee. evidence in support of claim of the assessee. evidence in support of claim of the assessee. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Ld. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Ld. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Ld.

CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. The grounds raised by the assessee CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. The grounds raised by the assessee CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. The grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal are accordingly dismisses. in its appeal are accordingly dismisses.

Order pronounced in the open Court on nounced in the open Court on 20/12/2024. /12/2024.