Section 68, 131 of Income Tax Act, 1961— In the instant case, appeal is filed by assessee against the order passed by CIT. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is that
CIT-A erred in confirming the order of the AO by making the addition of 8,48,600/- under the head capital gain.

And next issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of 4,40,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit.

Held that—the controversy before us arises for our adjudication to whether the assessee has incurred any cost of the improvement in the given facts and circumstances. In this regard, we note that the initial onus lies on the assessee to substantiate his claim from documentary evidence. The assessee before the AO filed the duplicate copies of the bills issued by 2 parties justifying the cost of improvement incurred by him.
However, we note that the above claim of the assessee was not substantiated before the authorities below by supporting evidence. it is clear that the assessee failed to discharge his onus by documentary evidence in support of his claim.

In view of the above, we do not find any merit on the submissions filed by the assessee. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Held that—the controversy arises whether the cash deposited by the assessee represents the unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 of the Act fasten the liability on the assessee to explain the source of the sum credited in the books of accounts.
The assessee in the present case has just explained the source of the cash deposited in the bank but failed to substantiate the same by documentary evidence. The onus lies on the assessee to explain the source of the cash deposited in the bank from documentary evidence which assessee failed.

We note that there was no dispute regarding the sale consideration of the immovable property. The assessee has also not challenged the sale consideration of the property either before the AO or the learned CIT (A). The assessee 1st time before us has taken a plea that the cash deposited represents the part of the sale proceeds of the immovable property.

Thus we note that there is a contradictory statement of the assessee before the authorities below and before us. Therefore, we conclude that there is no merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the assessee.
We reject the plea of the assessee and accordingly find no reason to interfere with the finding of the lower authorities.[AMIT SUBHASCHANDRA ACHARYA VERSUS ITO, WARD-15 (2) , AHMEDABAD][2018] 8 ITCD Online (32) [ITAT AHMEDABAD]