SURESH M. BHATHIJA (HUF), MUMBAI V. ITO WD 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2561/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF), who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which confirmed the assessment of long-term capital gains on the sale of land and the addition of unexplained cash deposits. The Assessing Officer (AO) had initially found discrepancies in the income tax return filed by the assessee, which did not disclose the sale of land. Upon investigation, it was revealed that the land was non-agricultural and the sale proceeds were not reported in the return. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the AO's findings that the land was non-agricultural and the expenses claimed were not supported by sufficient evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 130098 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 30-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: YOGENDRA T WAKARE
• Assessee Lawyers: RUTUJA N PAWAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Corroborative evidences; Capital Gains
• Section: 68; 50C; 54F; 2(14); 142(1); 133(6); 143(2); 69A; 13

Judgement Text

P a g e | 1 ITA No. 2561/Mum/2022 Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF) vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2561/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2006-07) Bhathija Suresh M (HUF) 120 DakshinPali, D Monte Park Road Pali Hill Mumbai 400050 Vs. Income Tax Officer 23(3)(1), Mumbai स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAAHS 8289 M Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant by : Ms. Rutuja N Pawar& Ms. Sneha More Respondent by : Shri Yogendra T Wakare Date of Hearing 31.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 27.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the NFAC (NFAC), Delhi, dated 15.09.2022 for A.Y. 2006-07. The assessee has raised the following grounds before us: “1. The learned CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer in bringing to tax an amount of Rs. 90,92,165/- as long term capital gains on sale of land. 2. The learned CIT(Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the said land was an agricultural land and was not a capital asset. 3. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, the learned CIT(Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer were not justified in disallowing the claim for expenses of Rs. 69,00,000/- while computing the long term capital gains. P a g e | 2 ITA No. 2561/Mum/2022 Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF) vs. ITO 4. The reasons given by the learned CIT(Appeals) and the learned Assessing Officer in relation to the above grounds are unjustified and unwarranted. The Appellant challenges all the findings given in this regard. 5. The learned CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer in taxing an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as unexplained deposit in the bank account. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, to alter or to amend the above grounds of appeal.” 2. Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,01,500/- was filed on 01.08.2006. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 20.06.2007. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer after verification of AIR data found that assessee had sold an immovable property at Mawal, Dist. Pune for a total consideration of Rs. 1.20 crduring the previous year relevant to assessment year under consideration. The said sale of property was registered on 21.04.2005. The assessee had not shown computation of any capital gain on the sale of immovable property. The assessee has also not shown any capital gain or information of the sale of the said property in the return of income filed. Therefore, the AO asked the assessee to furnish the details about the sale of the said property. The assessee furnished copy of his bank account maintained in Bank of India, Turner Road Branch, Mumbai (account No. SB 13415). On perusal of the said bank account, the AO noticed that sale amount was not credited in the bank account. Therefore, the assessee was given an another opportunity and assessee filed copy of another bank account maintained with Bank of India in the same branch with bank account No. 0063 10100020790 in the name of Sh. Suresh M. Bathija HUF in which the sale amount was credited on 25.04.2005. Therefore, AO issued show cause notice dated 11 th Sept, 2008 asking the assessee to show cause why the provision of section 50C should not be applied in his case. The relevant extract of the show cause notice is reproduced as under: P a g e | 3 ITA No. 2561/Mum/2022 Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF) vs. ITO "In connection with the assessment for the assessment year 2006-07 in your case, you were asked to produce the following details before the undersigned on various occasions during the course of assessment proceedings, by way of order sheet notings marked on 20- 06-2008, 24-07-2008 and 01-08-2008. However, the following details are yet to be submitted. 1. submitted (Age for sale) Statement of affairs/balance sheet for the year. 2. Details of sale of property during the year and computation of Capital Gains thereon. 3. Details of expenses incurred if any on transfer of the property sold during the year alongwith evidences to support the same. In view of continued non-compliance by you, the undersigned has no option left but to complete your assessment on the basis of material on records. You are therefore required to show-cause why the following additions should not be made to your income, 1. It is seen during the course of assessment proceedings that you have sold a non- agricultural land situated at Taluka Maval, Dist Pune during the FY 2005-06 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,20,00,000/-. The sale agreement was registered on 21-04-2005. This information was not disclosed by you in your Return of Income for the AY 2006-07 and the same was discovered during the course of assessment proceedings. The resultant Capital Gains on such sale have not been offered by you for taxation nor any computation of the taxable Capital Gains on sale of property as mentioned above was furnished by you despite being asked for the same on several occasions, a fact duly marked in the order sheet written during the course of assessment proceedings. In view of this, you are hereby asked to show- Cause why the Capital Gains on sale of land as stated above should not be computed on the basis of material collected during the assessment proceedings and taxed accordingly in your hands. 2 Please also show-cause to me why the provisions of section 50C should not be applied in your case by adopting the market value of the land as per the Stamp Value Authorities for the computation of Capital Gains on sale of such land. 3. Please explain the source of cash deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 02-05- 2005 in your bank account No. 006310100020790 maintained with M/s Bank of India, Turner Road Branch, Mumbai. Please also explain why the said bank account was not disclosed in your return of income for the AY 2006-07. P a g e | 4 ITA No. 2561/Mum/2022 Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF) vs. ITO Kindly ensure point-wise compliance of the contents of this letter on or before 18-09- 2008. The next date of hearing is hereby fixed on 18-09- 2008 at 11.00 AM. In case you do not file your reply by 18-09-08, then in may be presumed that you have nothing to offer with respect to the issues as mentioned above. In that event, the assessment in your case may be finalised as per material available on records after taking into account all the details/replies filed by you.” 2.1 In response, the assessee submitted vide letter dated 18 th Sept, 2008 that assessee has not maintained any books of account and no balance sheet has been prepared and also filed a copy of sale of purchase deed of the sale of said land. The assessee submitted that the said land was used for agricultural operation and the same was not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act. The assessee also mentioned that copy of 7/12 extracts has been filed along with sale deed. It is also mentioned that the District Collector had allowed permission to use the said land as non- agricultural if needed. The assessee also claimed that income earned from the sale of agricultural land was exempt income, therefore, the same was not shown in the return of income. The assessee asked further time to furnish the supporting evidences in respect of his claim that income from sale of agriculture was exempt income, however, the assessee has not filed further detail. Therefore, the AO has deputed his inspector and inspector has reported after verification of the land record from revenue authority that the said land was not used for agricultural purposes. The inspector has also obtained a copy of the 7/12 extract which was also similar to the copy annexed by the assessee himself along with copy of sale deed. It was seen from the copy of land record that the said land was not used for agricultural purposes. However, the assessee has submitted another 7/12 extract on 6 th Oct, 2008 indicating that there were agricultural activities carried out on the sold land. The AO found that 7/12 extract submitted by the assessee on 6 th Oct, 2008 was obtained by him from unofficial channel which were different from the real 7/12 extract enclosed by the assessee with sale deed and P a g e | 5 ITA No. 2561/Mum/2022 Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF) vs. ITO obtained by the inspector officially from the revenue authority. The AO noticed that assessee has produced fabricated document in the form 7/12 extracts. The assessee was asked to controvert 7/12 real document and also requested to cross examine the inspector who had brought real 7/12 extract showing that sold land was not agricultural land. However, the assessee has not crossed examine the income tax inspector. Therefore, the AO after considering the facts and document come to the conclusion that sold land was non agricultural land. 2.2 Further during the course of assessment, the assessee also claimed that they have incurred Rs. 60,00,000/- for constructing boundary wall and levelling of land. However, during the course of assessment, the assessee could not substantiate its claim with relevant supporting evidences. Therefore, AO has disallowed the claim of expenditure towards improvement of the land. During the course of assessment, the assessee further claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act of Rs. 10,00,000/- on investments in residential house. However, the AO has rejected the said claim since the said investment was made in the name of karta of the assessee HUF. Further, no other evidence such as agreement, confirmation from the builder etc has been furnished by the assessee in support of its claim for deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Therefore, the AO has computed long term capital gain after adopting the value determined by the stamp duty authority as per the provision of section 50C of the Act and computed long term capital gain on sale of the land to the amount of Rs. 90,92,165/-. 2.3 Further, during the course of assessment, the AO noticed that there was cash deposit to the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- found in the bank account of the assessee maintained with Bank of India Branch. On query, the assessee could not substantiated the source of cash deposit with relevant supporting P a g e | 6 ITA No. 2561/Mum/2022 Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF) vs. ITO evidences, therefore, the same was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant extracted of the discussion of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:- “5.5 It is to be noted that the sale of property came to light only on the basis of AIR information, the appellant too was not forthcoming in sharing the documents and other particulars relate to this sale of land. It is seen from the Assessment order that when the initial query was raised by the A.O. calling for bank statements, capital gain computation, etc, the assessee did not comply. This has been brought out by A.O. in Para No.3.3 of the Order. Subsequently, when the details of sale of property were specifically called for, the assessee submitted Purchase and Sale Agreement. Even at this stage, the bank statement did not reveal the sale proceeds of land. When the relevant bank account statement was furnished by the assessee, it was noticed by A.O. that from the receipt of sale proceeds amounts had been transferred to various corporate entities and the account was closed on 20th October 2006. The A.O. initiated enquiries u/s 133 (6) as well as on spot enquiry in respect of land under consideration. Before him the assessee took a stand as follows: i. The land under consideration was agricultural land. ii. The agriculture on the said land was yielding only nominal income. iii. A certificate from local authority was filed stating the land to be agricultural land. It also talked of agricultural activities carried on by the assessee. The A.O. has made this certificate a part of the order of assessment as Exhibit D'. The results of enquiries undertaken by Inspector on the spot turned out to be totally different. The report of the Inspector has been again made part of the order of assessment as Exhibit 'A' and reveals the following: 1. That the land in question is non-agricultural 2. No agricultural activity had been carried out on the said land. A copy of the necessary document from the local authority, the Talati, was also obtained by the Inspector and is part of the order of assessment as Exhibit 'E'. As confirmation of the fact that the land in question was not an agricultural land, the A.O. has also relied upon purchase and sale Documents filed by the assessee before him. The observations of the A.O. are contained P a g e | 7 ITA No. 2561/Mum/2022 Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF) vs. ITO in Para No.3.14 onwards on page 14 of the order of assessment. These again establish that land in question is non-agricultural land. The appellant was also given opportunity to cross examine the ITI, who had done the field investigation, but this opportunity was never availed by the appellant. The A.O. has also placed reliance upon the fact that assessee had never disclosed any agricultural income in the Return of Income confirming that as a matter of fact no agriculture was carried out on the land. The statement of Karta of HUF was recorded by the AO, wherein all these facts were confronted. The relevant portions of the statement recorded had been made part of the order of assessment. A perusal of various replies given by the Karta revealed that he could not substantiate the veracity of the 7/12 extract filed by him in the course of assessment proceedings claiming the land to be agricultural land. Further, he also could not give any concrete reasons on the income resulting from agricultural activities from the land in question. 5.6 The appellant has taken a plea that to qualify for agricultural land, it is not necessary that the land was once a agricultural land. However, the weight of evidence produced by the Id AO overwhelmingly show that the land was not an agricultural land. The ITI had obtained a copy of 7/12 extract which was part of the sale deed, and this clearly records that the true value of the land. the 7/12 extract are part of the record. The appellant did not cross examine the inspector even when opportunity was provided. on the contrary the appellant produced a fabricated copy of 7/12 extract. Also, the appellant itself has mentioned nature of the land as non- agricultural in the relevant sale agreement. Further, the appellant has not shown any agricultural income in the return filed for the earlier years. Book profit of the sale also has not been credited to the capital account. Thus, the evidence gathered by the AO are summarized in the para 3.34 of the Assessment order. Relying on these evidence, I conclude that the land in question is not an agricultural land. 5.7 I further note that a notice u/s 133(6) was issued on 01.08.2018 to the Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority, this authority has categorically stated that the said land was approximately 1920 meter from the limits of Lonavala Municipal council. Thus, as the said land is a non- agricultural land and within 2 kilometers from the limits of Lonavala Municipal council, therefore, I hold that the Id AO has correctly computed capital gains on the sale of land at Waksai Village, Plot No.543, Taluka Maval, Dist Pune. Accordingly, the ground of the appellant is dismissed. 6.0 The second ground of appeal is against A.O. invoking provisions of section 50C in respect of agricultural land. I find that the only contention of assessee P a g e | 8 ITA No. 2561/Mum/2022 Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF) vs. ITO is that the land in question being non-agricultural Sec 50C is not attracted. I have already held in para 5 of this order that the land in question is not agricultural land. Therefore, the A.O. has rightly invoked provisions of Sec.50C of the Act. The ground of appeal is dismissed. 7.0 The Next ground of appeal is against A.O. disallowing expenses of Rs.69 lakhs incurred on the land before its sale. The appellant has claimed in the assessment proceedings that expenses on land were incurred by obtaining, loans from two parties and making cash withdrawals of loan amounts. The loan was claimed from the following concerns: i. M/s. Dewan Housing Finance Corporation: Rs.50 lakhs ii. M/s. Sapphire Land Development Pvt. Ltd.: Rs.57 lakhs 7.1 In order to verify the genuineness of the contention, the A.O. initiated enquiries and wrote letters u/s. 133 (6) to the two parties. According to A.O., the response from DHFC reveals that the loan was actually in the individual capacity and not to HUF appellant. He has further observed that there are no documentary evidences towards expenses incurred. According to A.O., the assessee has not even given the details of names of parties, etc. who had done any kind of work on the land under question. Therefore, the claim that fund from DHEC was utilised for improvement in land has been rejected by him. In respect of M/s. Sapphire Land Development Pvt. Ltd., again the A.O. has observed that the loan was to the individual and not the HUF. In this case too, the appellant has not produced any supporting evidence towards the claim of expenses. it is merely claimed that the expenses were made in cash. 7.2 Further, the A.O. has observed that in the course of assessment proceedings a computation of capital gain was filed in which assessee has not claimed any indexation of such expenses incurred. He has also referred to no claim of interest on the borrowed funds to establish non-genuineness of the claim of expenses incurred. On the above arguments, the A.O. has disallowed the claim of any expenses incurred on the agricultural land. 7.3 I have perused all the facts of the case. The claim of expenses has to be supported by some evidence. In the instant case, there is nothing on record either in the form of documents or in the form of name, address, etc. of any contractor, labour, etc. through which any work was got done or even in the form of purchase of material like bricks, etc. for boundary wall. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever the claim of expenses incurred cannot be accepted. Mere fact of withdrawal from bank account does not confirm anything. Moreover, even loans were given to individual and not appellant. P a g e | 9 ITA No. 2561/Mum/2022 Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF) vs. ITO Therefore, in my view, the A.O. has rightly rejected the claim of expenses incurred on agricultural land. The ground of appeal is accordingly dismissed. 8.0 The next ground of appeal is against addition of an amount of Rs.1 lakh on account of cash deposited in bank account. 8.1 The A.O. had given a specific show cause in response to which the only submission made by the assessee was that deposit was out of cash in hand. According to A.O., the assessee had talked of submitting statement of affairs which were never filed. He had come to the conclusion that there is no evidence of any cash in hand with the assessee. He made the addition u/ s. 68 of the Act. 8.2 I have perused the facts of the case. I find that there is nothing on record to suggest that there was cash balance with the assessee. Yet an amount of Rs.1 lakh was deposited in the bank account. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation, the addition made by the A.O. is justified. I find that the A.O. has invoked Sec.68 of the Act for making the addition which is not correct. In the instant case, the cash of Rs.1 lakh was in possession of the assessee which has been deposited in the bank account. Therefore, the addition is justified u/s. 69A of the I.T. Act. The order of the A.O. is modified to this extent. the ground of the appellant is dismissed. 9.0 The last grounds of appeal are general in nature and are not discussed. 10.0 In result, the appeal is dismissed.” 4. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel referred the detail of submission made before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings as placed in the paper book. The ld. counsel referred page 65 of the paper book pertaining to copy of purchase agreement dated 1 st July, 1995 of the sold land. The ld. counsel referred page 9 of the said agreement wherein it is mentioned that said property was reserved under green zone, however, Additional Collector, Pune granted non -agricultural permission of the said property. The ld. counsel also referred a copy of sale agreement dated 21 st April, 2005 placed in the paper book. The ld. counsel further submitted that said land was an agricultural land and was not a capital asset and contended that AO was not justified in treating the amount of Rs. P a g e | 10 ITA No. 2561/Mum/2022 Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF) vs. ITO 90,92,165/- as long term gain on sale of land. The ld. counsel also submitted that the AO has also not considered the claim of expenses of Rs. 69,00,000/- incurred by the assessee for computing long term capital gain. The ld. counsel also mentioned that the AO was not justified in taxing Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited in the bank account as unexplained cash deposit. 5. On the other hand, the ld. Deptt representative vehemently contended that it is evident from extract of 7/12 document enclosed by the assessee itself with sale agreement that the said land was non-agricultural land. He further submitted that this fact was also proved by the report of inspector of income tax who has also officially obtained, the same 7/12 extract from the land revenue authority which established that sold land was non-agricultural land. The ld. DR also submitted that assessee has obtained 7/12 document unofficially from irregular source and its genunine could not be established by the assessee. The ld. DR also submitted that assessee also could not furnish the relevant supporting material to establish that it has actually incurred an amount of Rs. 69,00,000/- towards development of the land which was sold. The ld. DR also submitted that in spite of giving a number of opportunities, the assessee could not substantiate the source of Rs. 1,00,000/- cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee. 6. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of assessment from the AIR information, the AO noticed that the assessee had sold land but sale transaction was not reflected in the return of income filed by the assessee. The relevant extracts of the facts emerged from the investigation carried out by the AO is reproduced as under:- “3.3.4 To sum up the following facts emerge from the above discussion, (i) The assessee had sold a non-agricultural land for a total consideration of Rs. 1.20 Cr during the year at Village Waksai, Taluka Mawal, Dist. Pune which was not disclosed in his ROI nor any working of Capital Gain was annexed P a g e | 11 ITA No. 2561/Mum/2022 Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF) vs. ITO with the ROI. The land was purchased by the assessee vide purchase deed dated 01-06-1995 for a total consideration of Rs. 21 lacs. (ii) The land was non-agricultural land which stands vindicated by the fact that the said land was not being used for any agricultural purposes. No agricultural income was offered by the assessee in earlier years or in the current year. Also, the permission to use the land for residential purposes was granted by the competent authority at the time of purchase itself. Further, the assessee has itself mentioned the land as non-agricultural in the relevant sale agreement as already discussed. The land was sold as a non-agricultural land by the assessee. The claim of the assessee that the same is not a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act is baseless and therefore rejected. (iii) The 7/12 extract which is part of the sale deed corresponds with the 7/12 extract obtained by the Inspector, Mr. Chowkekar through enquiries. The assessee furnished a different 7/12 extract of the said land which was fabricated as established in the discussions above. The assessee also did not cross examine the Inspector even when the opportunity of doing so was given. The 7/12 extract which was part of the sale deed was true and correct copy of the land records of the said land & this fact was verified through enquiries. (iv) The book gains from the above sale were not credited to the capital account for the year. No balance sheet was filed by the assessee with the ROI despite asking for the same. (v) The bank account in which the sale consideration of Rs. 1.20 Cr was credited was not reflected in the ROI nor the same was submitted voluntarily by the assessee. It took six opportunities, twice by way of notices U/s 142(1) and four times by way of order sheet entries, for the assessee to submit the relevant bank statement. (vi) The assessee furnished the working of the LTCG on sale of such land on 18- 09-2008 in response to the final show-cause notice. The assessee claimed deduction of expenses to the tune of Rs. 69 lacs against the said capital gains. No details of such expenses were given, nor any supporting evidences were filed. The expenses were claimed to have been incurred only in cash. The relevant bank statement from where such alleged withdrawals were made was not furnished. Even the account number was not furnished. The claim of the assessee was therefore rejected. (vii) The assessee has received sale consideration of Rs. 1.20 Cr whereas the value of the land as per the stamp valuation authority was Rs. 1,28,06,400/-. The sale consideration for the purpose of computation of LTCG on the sale of P a g e | 12 ITA No. 2561/Mum/2022 Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF) vs. ITO such land is therefore taken at the value adopted by the Stamp Duty authorities as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act as already discussed. 7. The AO has made detailed investigation and found that 7/12 extract which was annexed as part of the sale deed was similar to the 7/12 extract obtained by the inspector officially through inquiry from the land revenue authority. However, during the course of assessment the assessee had furnished a different 7/12 agreement of the said land from irregular soruces which was fabricated and its genuineness could not be established by the assessee in spite of giving number of opportunities. The ld. CIT(A) has also called remand report from the AO on the veracity of 7/12 extract. After detailed inquiry the AO submitted that 7/12 extract annexed with sale agreement duly registered on 21 st April, 2005 shows that the land in question is a non-agricultural land and no agricultural activities have been done on the land. In the remand proceedings, it was also found from the report of the Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority that said sold land was situated within two KMs from the nearest limit of Lonavala Municipal Council. 8. Further neither during the assessment nor before ld. CIT(A), the assessee could substantiate the claim of expenses incurred for the development of the sold land with relevant supporting documentary evidences. There was no documentary evidence towards expenses incurred. The assessee had also failed to substantiate with relevant supporting material, the nature of land development work carried out and who was the party who had carried out the land development work etc. The assessee has failed to furnish any relevant supporting material to demonstrate that actual land development work was carried out. 9. In view of the facts and findings, we consider that the AO has demonstrated from the copy of extracts of 7/12 annexed by the assessee with the sale agreement of land, copy of similar extract of 7/12 obtained by the P a g e | 13 ITA No. 2561/Mum/2022 Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF) vs. ITO Inspector Officer from the Revenue Authority and report from the Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority as discussed in the order that impugned sold land was non-agricultural land therefore, AO has rightly invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act. The assessee has also failed to substantiate the claim of expenses incurred on development of land with relevant documentary evidences as discussed supra in the order. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 4 of the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed. 10. Regarding addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposited in the bank as discussed (supra) in this year, we find that assessee has failed to explain the source of amount of cash deposited in the bank account. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the assessee is also dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.09.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Aby T Varkey) (Amarjit Singh) Judicial Member Accountant Member Place: Mumbai Date 27.09.2023 Ganesh Kumar, PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. P a g e | 14 ITA No. 2561/Mum/2022 Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF) vs. ITO 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.