INDERPAL SINGH CHAWLA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 337/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around the scrutiny of cash deposits made by Inderpal Singh Chawla during the demonetization period in India. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had added Rs.62,00,000 to the assessee's income as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on the suspicion that the cash deposits were not adequately explained. The assessee contended that these deposits were sourced from cash withdrawals made for business purposes, which were later deposited in tranches. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) upheld the ITO's decision, leading the assessee to appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, after examining the evidence and arguments, concluded that the assessee's explanation was plausible and allowed the appeal, thereby dismissing the additions made by the lower authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35684 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Next Hearing Date: 03-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Business income; Search and seizure
• Section: 69A; 20

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Inderpal Singh Chawla Main Road, Kharora, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 PAN: AEEPC3222Q .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vimal Kumar Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 03.09.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024 2 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 24.05.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 28.12.2019 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.62,00,000/- on the count of unexplained money u/s.69A.” 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessment made u/s.143(3) is bad in law. 3. The appellant craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is engaged in the business of plying and hiring of trucks, had filed his return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 30.03.2018, declaring an income of Rs.9,61,520/-. The assessee in his return of income had offered income from plying and hiring of trucks u/s. 44AE of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s.143(2) of the Act. 3 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had during the demonetization period, i.e. 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016, made cash deposits of Rs.62 lacs in his three bank accounts, as under: The A.O called upon the assessee to justify the source of the aforesaid cash deposits of Rs.62 lacs made in his bank accounts during the demonetization period. In reply, the assessee vide his letter dated 05.12.2019 submitted as under: 4 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 5 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 4. Although, it was the claim of the assessee that the cash deposits of Rs.62 lacs in his bank accounts were sourced out of the cash withdrawals of Rs.98.80 lacs made during the demonetization period, but the same did not find favour with the A.O. The A.O issued a “Show cause notice” (SCN) to the assessee and called upon him to put forth an explanation regarding 6 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 the purpose of making the cash withdrawals during the period 19.09.2016 to 30.09.2016, and further directed him to produce confirmations of the persons who had made the cash withdrawals from the banks or produce them physically for examination before him. In reply, it was submitted by the assessee that the cash withdrawals were made for the purpose of his business by his staff members. The A.O on a perusal of the bank account details observed that though the assessee during the subject year had total receipts of Rs.86,01,557/- and claimed expenses of Rs.77,26,557/-, but he had made cash withdrawals of Rs.98,80,000/- in the month of September, 2016. The A.O was of the view that the assessee had himself contradicted his claim that the cash withdrawals were made for his business purpose. The A.O observed that the assessee had deposited cash on various dates during the demonetization period, and was of the view that if the assessee had cash in hand of Rs.62 lacs available with him on 08.11.2016, then he would have deposited the same in one go and not spread the same on various dates. Further, the A.O held a firm conviction that no person of common prudence would keep such huge amount as cash in hand for more than 2 months at his home with all the risk of life and security, and rather would deposit the same in bank and earn a minimal interest of 3- 4%. The A.O was of the view that as the story advanced by the assessee was beyond human probabilities, therefore, the same could not be accepted. Also, the A.O was of the view that if the money was withdrawn 7 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 by the assessee for the purpose of his business, then the same would have been deposited by him in his current account and not in his saving bank account. The A.O further observed that the story of the assessee was an afterthought which was fortified by the fact that he remaining under a strong belief that his case would not be picked up for scrutiny assessment filed his return of income for the subject year on 30.03.2018, whereas the “due date” for filing the same was 31.07.2017. The A.O further observed that though the assessee in his written submissions, dated 24.12.2019 filed with the A.O had shown the closing cash in hand as on 31.03.2017 at Rs.22,95,424/- but on perusal of the return of income filed for A.Y.2017- 18, the cash balance in Schedule BP in roe E12 was shown at Rs.1,55,240/-. 5. The A.O, observing that as the assessee had failed to explain the “nature” and “source” of the cash deposits of Rs.62 lacs made in SBNs by the assessee during the demonetization period thus, held the entire amount as his unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2019, after making the aforesaid addition determined the income of the assessee at Rs.71,61,520/-. 8 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under: “8. Having considered the factual matrix of the case, I find that the above mentioned additions were made by the AO as there was no satisfactory response from the assessee to various notices/SCN issued by the AO. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO had asked the assessee to furnish the details of cash deposits during the year. I also find that the assessee did not file any submissions supported by proper evidence along with a petition under Rule 46A for admission of evidence in the appellate proceedings. The assessee has not controverted the findings of the AO supported by proper evidence. I also find that the additions made by the AO are based on solid evidence which was confronted to the assessee by the AO and the additions are made as per the provisions of law. No evidence whatsoever has been filed by the assessee to substantiate and buttress the grounds of appeal. The assessee has not submitted any proof in support of its contention that it had been carrying on business during the year. The assessee has also not established that it had been carrying on similar business in the earlier years and subsequent years and that it had the consistent practice of depositing a large amounts of cash in its bank accounts every year before and after the A.Y.2017-18. If the assessee had the cash in hand of Rs.62,00,000/- on 08/11/2016, he would have deposited the same in one go and not on various dates. Further, no person of common prudence will keep such high cash in hand for more than 2 months in his home with all risk of life and security, further depositing it with bank and earn interest of at least 3- 4%. The story advanced by the assessee during the assessment proceedings is beyond human probabilities and cannot be accepted. It was also seen that the bulk of money had been deposited in his saving bank account and not in his current account. If the money was withdrawn for the purpose of business, the same should have been deposited in his current account and not in his saving bank a/c. The story of the assessee is an afterthought because he filed the return of income on 30.03.2018, whereas the due date of filing return of income in this case was on 31.07.2017, believing that his case will not be selected for scrutiny. It can also be seen that the closing cash in hand had been shown to be Rs.22,95,424/- in his written submission dated 24.12.2019 but on perusal of 9 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 return of income filed for A.Y 2017-18, it was observed by the AO that cash balance in return in Schedule BP in roe E12 has been shown to Rs.1,55,240/-. In the circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned and speaking order of the AO. Therefore, the additions on account of cash deposits of Specified Bank Notes (SBN) of Rs.62,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act is confirmed. Hence, the grounds of appeal are Dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 7. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 8. Shri Vimal Kumar Agrawal, the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee submitted that the A.O had grossly erred in law and facts of the case in treating the duly explained cash deposits in SBNs of Rs.62 lacs made in the bank accounts during the demonetization period as the assessee’s unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that though the assessee had vide his reply dated 05.12.2019 explained the source of the cash deposits in SBNs of Rs.62 lacs made in his bank account during the demonetization period before the A.O, but the latter had most arbitrarily and without any justifiable reason held the same as the assessee’s unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 9. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had given a loan of Rs.1,70,00,000/- to M/s. Rajgharia Industrial Equipment Pvt. Ltd. during F.Y.2015-16 out of which an amount of 10 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 Rs.1,00,60,000/- was returned back by the said party to the assessee during the year under consideration, i.e. 19.09.2016 to 05.10.2016. The Ld. AR in support of his contention had drawn our attention to the confirmation of account of M/s. Rajgharia Industrial Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and copies of bank statements (placed on record). The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had during the subject year made cash withdrawals in tranches of Rs.98.80 lacs out of which, he had made cash deposits of Rs.62 lacs during the demonetization period. On being queried about the balance amount, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that out of cash withdrawals of Rs.98.80 lacs, an amount of Rs.20 lacs was deposited by the assessee in his bank account No.02981000008865 during the pre- demonetization period in three tranches, viz. (i) 27.10.2016: Rs. 2,00,000/- ; (ii) 27.10.2016: Rs.9,00,000/-; and (iii) 27.10.2016: Rs.9,00,000/-. It was the claim of the Ld. AR that after depositing an amount of Rs.20 lacs (supra), there remained a balance amount of Rs.78,80,000/- which had sourced the cash deposits of Rs.62 lacs in assessee’s bank account. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 11. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. 11 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 12. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings had vide his reply dated 05.12.2019 come forth with an explanation as regards the source of the cash deposits of Rs.62 lacs (supra) made in his bank accounts during the subject year. The explanation of the assessee had been reproduced by the A.O in the body of the assessment order. I find on a perusal of the assessment order that the A.O had declined the assesse’'s explanation as regards the source of the cash deposits of Rs.62 lacs made in his bank accounts for multi-facet reasons, viz. (i) there was no justifiable reason that as to why the assessee had not deposited the entire amount of cash during the demonetization period in a single go and had spread over the same on different dates; (ii) there was no reason for the assessee to have kept the substantial amount of cash with him instead of deposing the same in his bank account; (iii) that if the money as claimed by the assessee was withdrawn for the purpose of his business, then why the same was deposited in his savings bank account and not in his current account; (iv) that the cash in hand as per written submission dated 24.12.2019 filed by the assessee was Rs.22,95,424/-, but the same as per his return of income for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2017-18, in Schedule BP was shown at Rs.1,55,240/-; (v) the assessee had delayed the filing of his return of income for the year under consideration expecting that the same would not be picked up for scrutiny assessment; and (vi) 12 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 that the fact that the total business receipts of the assessee aggregated to Rs.86.01 lacs (approx.) and expenses claimed by him were Rs.77.26 lacs (approx.) but the assessee had made cash withdrawals of Rs.98.80 lacs during the month of September, 2016 which in itself falsified his claim that the cash withdrawals were made by him for the purpose of business. 13. We have thoughtfully considered the facts involved in the present case in the backdrop of the contentions advanced by the Ld. authorized representatives of both the parties. It transpires on a perusal of the confirmation of the account of M/s. Rajgharia Industrial Equipment Pvt. Ltd. that the assessee had advanced a loan of Rs.1,70,00,000/- to the aforementioned company during F.Y.2015-16. The assessee had filed before us a copy of bank statement of Punjab and Sind Bank, A/c No.02981000008865, on a perusal of which, we find that an amount of Rs.1,00,60,000/- was repaid during the subject year by M/s. Rajgharia Industrial Equipment Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee, as under: Date Amount 09.09.2016 Rs.19,50,000/- 12.09.2016 Rs.12,50,000/- Rs.11,80,000/- 23.09.2016 Rs.5,00,000/- 26.09.2016 Rs.17,00,000/- 13 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 For the sake of clarity, the copy of bank statement supporting the aforesaid factual position is culled out as under (relevant extract): 27.09.2016 Rs.16,50,000/- 28.09.2016 Rs.6,50,000/- 29.09.2016 Rs.10,00,000/- 05.10.2016 Rs.1,80,000/- Total Rs.1,00,60,000/- 14 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 Also, we find that the assessee had made cash withdrawals amounting to Rs.98,80,000/- during the pre-demonetization period in various tranches, viz. (i) 19.09.2016 : Rs.19,50,000/-; (ii) 22.09.2016 : Rs.24,30,000/-; (iii) 23.09.2016 : Rs.5,00,000/-; (iv) 26.09.2016 : Rs.17,00,000/-; (v) 27.09.2016 : Rs.16,50,000/-; (vi) 28.09.2016 : 6,50,000/-; and (vii) 30.09.2016 : Rs.10,00,000/-. 14. As observed by us hereinabove, M/s. Rajgharia Industrial Equipment Pvt. Ltd. had during the year under consideration made part repayment of loans of Rs1,00,60,000/- to the assessee, which amount was credited in the assessee’s savings bank account No.02981000008865 with Punjab & Sind Bank, Raipur (copy of bank account enclosed). The assessee, had thereafter, during the pre-demonetization period made cash withdrawals aggregating to Rs.98.80 lacs out of the aforesaid amount during the period 09.09.2016 to 29.09.2016. Thereafter, the assessee had 15 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 made a cash deposits of Rs.62,00,000/- in SBNs during the demonetization period in his three bank accounts maintained with Punjab and Sind Bank, Raipur, viz. (i) Savings bank A/c. No.02981000008865 : Rs.3,00,000/-; (ii) Savings Bank account No.02981100004062 : Rs.36,00,000/-; and (iii) Current Bank account No.11571100000074 : Rs.23,00,000/-. It is the claim of the assessee that the aforesaid cash deposits of Rs.62 lacs (supra) in SBNs made in his bank accounts during the demonetization period were made out of the cash in hand available with him which, in turn was sourced out of the cash withdrawals of Rs.98.80 lacs (supra) made from his aforementioned bank account No. No.02981000008865 with Punjab & Sind Bank, Raipur during the pre- demonetization period, i.e. 09.09.2016 to 29.09.2016. Out of the aforesaid withdrawals of Rs.98.80 lacs (supra), the assessee claims to have made cash deposits of Rs. 20 lacs in his bank accounts during the pre- demonetisation period, i.e. on 27.10.2016. 15. We are of a firm conviction that as the availability of cash in hand of Rs.78.80 lacs (supra) [Rs.98.80 lacs (-) Rs.20 lacs] with the assessee had not been dislodged by the department, therefore, there could have been no justification for rejecting his claim that the cash deposits of Rs.62 lacs (supra) in SBNs made in his bank accounts during the demonetisation period were sourced out of the aforesaid cash in hand available with him. At this stage, it would be relevant to point out that it is not the case of the 16 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 department that the cash withdrawals of Rs.78.80 lacs (supra) made by the assessee during the pre-demonetisation period, i.e. in the month of September, 2016 was utilized for making any investment or incurring of any expenditure. 16. We shall now deal with the reasons given by the A.O for rejecting the explanation of the assessee as regards the source of cash deposits made in SBNs of Rs.62 lacs in his bank accounts during demonetisation period. 17. Apropos the observation of the A.O that if the assessee had cash in hand available with him, then why did he not deposit the entire amount of cash of Rs.62 lacs (supra) in SBNs in a single go in his bank account, but had spread over the same in tranches, we are unable to concur with the drawing of the adverse inferences by the A.O on the said count. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee had made cash deposits in SBNs of Rs.62 lacs in his bank accounts, during the demonetization period, viz. (i) Savings bank A/c. No.02981000008865 : Rs.3,00,000/-; (ii) Savings Bank account No.02981100004062 : Rs.36,00,000/-; and (iii) Current Bank account No.11571100000074 : Rs.23,00,000/-. Although the observation of the A.O that in case the assessee was having substantial amount of demonetized currency/cash available with him then he ought to have deposited the entire amount in a single go during the demonetization period at the first blush appeared to 17 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 be convincing but are afraid that the same is far from ground reality. At the threshold, we are of the view that spread over of the cash deposits in SBNs by the assessee during the demonetization period in tranches is supported by the fact that the amounts had been deposited by him in his three bank accounts. Apart from that, we are of the view that as carrying substantial amount of cash during the demonetisation period was vulnerable to the risk of theft, snatching etc, therefore, the said reason could have also weighed in the mind of the assessee for spreading over the cash deposits over the time period allowed by the government for depositing the demonetized currency in the bank accounts. 18. Be that as it may, we are of the view that as long as the assessee has a plausible explanation as regards the source of the subject cash deposits, there can be no justification for the A.O to have drawn adverse inferences for the reason that the subject deposits were made in tranches over a period of time and not in a single go. 19. Apropos the observation of the A.O that as to why the assessee had not deposited the entire amount of cash that was withdrawn by him in the month of September, 2016 from his bank account i.e. 19.09.2016 to 30.09.2016, and had kept the same with himself, we are of the view that there could be multiple reasons for the same. As observed by us hereinabove, it is neither discernible from the record nor claimed by the 18 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 Ld. DR before us that the cash withdrawals made by the assessee from his bank account were thereafter, utilized/invested by him or not available with him to source the cash deposits in SBNs during the year under consideration. No material has been placed before us to dislodge the availability of cash in hand in SBNs of Rs.62 lacs (supra) with the assessee, out of the cash withdrawals of Rs.78.80 lacs (supra) made from his bank account during the pre-demonetisation period. We, thus, are unable to concur with the adverse inferences drawn by the A.O as regards the explanation of the assessee about the source of the cash deposits made in his bank account in SBNs, inter alia, for the reason that he had not earlier deposited the amount of cash withdrawals made by him in the month of September, 2016 in his bank account. 20. We shall now deal with the observation of the A.O that now when it was claimed by the assessee that the cash withdrawals of Rs.98.80 lacs (supra) were made for business purposes then why the cash deposits in SBNs of Rs.62 lacs (supra) were made by him in his savings bank account and not in his current account, i.e. CA No.11571100000074 with Punjab and Sind Bank, Raipur. We are unable to comprehend the aforesaid observation of the A.O. As the government after announcing the demonetization had provided a window to the citizens for depositing the demonetized currency in their bank accounts within a specified time frame i.e. 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016, therefore, the assessee at the relevant point 19 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 of time would have been driven by need of depositing the said demonetized currency/SBNs in his bank accounts. Apart from that, we are unable to fathom as to how the A.O could have regulated the manner in which the cash deposits in SBNs were to be made by the assessee in his bank accounts. As the aforesaid observation of the A.O is devoid and bereft of any substance, therefore, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the same. 21. Apropos the observation of the A.O that though the assessee as per his written submission dated 24.12.2019 filed before him had disclosed cash in hand of Rs.22,95,424/- on 31.03.2017 but in his return of income had disclosed the same at Rs.1,55,240/-, we are of the view that same would not carry the case of the department any further. Although, we are principally in agreement with the A.O that the cash in hand available with the assessee as on 31.03.2017, i.e. both as per the written submission dated 24.12.2019 and that disclosed in return of income for A.Y.2017-18 ought not to have been at variance, but the said fact cannot justify the rejection of the assessee’s claim as regards the source of cash deposits in SBNs of Rs.62 lacs (supra). As the assessee had made cash withdrawals of Rs.98.80 lacs (supra) during pre-demonetisation period, therefore, in the backdrop of the cash in hand revealed by him in his written submission/return of income, the utilization/depositing of an amount of Rs.62 lacs can still be held to have been sourced from the aforesaid 20 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 amount. We, thus, finding no basis for drawing of any adverse inferences for the aforesaid reasons, i.e. difference in the cash in hand disclosed by the assessee in his written submission dated 24.12.2019 as against that disclosed in his return of income for the year under consideration, reject the same. 22. Apropos the observation of the A.O that the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y.2017-18, i.e. on 30.03.2018 for the reason that he was of the view that his case would not be scrutinized, we are unable to understand as to why such delayed filing of return of income would have any bearing on the assessee’s explanation as regards the source of the subject cash deposits of Rs.62 lacs made by him in SBNs in his bank accounts, which are claimed to have been sourced from the cash withdrawals of Rs.98.80 lacs (supra) made by him during pre- demonetisation period, i.e. in September, 2016. 23. Apropos the observation of the A.O that as the total business receipt of the assessee amounted to Rs. 86.01 lacs (approx.) and the expenses amounted to Rs.77.26 lacs (approx.), therefore, his claim that the amount of cash withdrawals of Rs.98.80 lacs made by him during the month of September, 2016 was for his business purpose is falsified, we are once again unable to fathom the aforesaid conviction of the A.O. As it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee had during the pre- 21 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 demonetisation period in September, 2016 i.e. immediately prior to announcement of the demonetisation policy by the government, therein made cash withdrawals from his bank account, the availability of which with him to source the cash deposits in SBNs during the demonetization period had not been disproved/dislodged by the department, therefore, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the aforesaid observation, based on which, the A.O had, inter alia, rejected the assessee’s explanation as regards the source of subject cash deposits in his bank accounts. 24. We are of a firm conviction that as the A.O had failed to place on record any material which would prove to the hilt that the amount of cash withdrawals of Rs.78.80 lacs (out of cash withdrawals of Rs.98.80 lacs) made by the assessee during the pre-demonetisation period, i.e. in September, 2016 was thereafter invested/utilized by the assessee somewhere else and, thus was not available with him to source the cash deposits in SBNs in his bank accounts during the demonetization period, therefore, there could have been no justification on his part to have held the cash deposits of Rs.62 lacs (supra) as the assessee’s unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Accordingly, we herein vacate the addition of Rs.62 lacs made/sustained by the lower authorities. Thus, the Grounds of appeal Nos.1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. 22 Inderpal Singh Chawla Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur ITA No. 337/RPR/2024 25. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 09th day of October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 09th October, 2024. ****SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "