SHRI BARYAM SINGH DIGWA, Raigarh(C.G) V. ITO, WARD- 1, RAIGARH(CG)

ITA 193/BIL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9681 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K JAIN
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.193/RPR/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 BARYAM SINGH DIGWA, KHARSIA ROAD, PATRAPALI, RAIGARH (CG). VS. ITO- 1, RAIGARH (CG). PAN : ACTPD9746K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL, CA MS. LAXMI SHARMA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI D. K. JAIN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 08-08-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-09-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2013 OF THE LD. CIT(A), BILASPUR (CG) RELATIN G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. ALTHOUGH A NUMBER OF GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, THEY ALL RELATE TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6,00,000/- OUT OF RS.14,66,000/ - ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER APART FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ON JURISDICTION. 2 ITA NO.193/RPR/2013 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ALSO A SENIOR CITIZEN AND DERIVES INCOME FROM CONSULTANC Y FEES AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 07 .10.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,48,360/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TW O BANK ACCOUNTS. THESE ACCOUNT NUMBERS ARE 10511270654 WITH SBI, PATRAPALI , RAIGARH AND 1973101002073 WITH CANARA BANK, SMRITI NAGAR, BHILL AI. ON PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WITH CANARA BANK THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT HUGE CASH WERE DEPOSITED ON 07.05.2008 AND 07.07.20 08. THESE CASH DEPOSITS ARE RS.4,66,000/- ON 07.05.2008 AND RS.10,00,000/- ON 07.07.2008. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS CALLED AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON 07.12.2011. ON BEING ASKED ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THESE CASH DEPOSITS WERE OUT OF THE FD MATURITY AMOUNT OF RS.5 ,46,826/- ON 06.05.2008 AND LOAN OF RS.5,40,000/- TAKEN ON 06.05.2008. OUT OF THESE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,66,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN ON 07.05.2008. HE FURTH ER STATED THAT THIS WITHDRAWN AMOUNT OF RS.4,66,000/- WAS DEPOSITED ON THE VERY SAME DAY I.E. ON 07.05.2008. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT OUT O F THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM 06.05.2008 TO 08.05.2008 HE HAS DEPOSITED THE ABOVE CASH OF RS.4,66,000/- AND RS.10,00,000/-. TRANSACTION IN ACCOUNT WITH CANARA BANK FROM 06.05.2008 TO 07.07.2008 WAS EXPLAINED IN THE CHART AS UNDER :- 3 ITA NO.193/RPR/2013 DATE WITHDRAWALS DEPOSITS REMARKS 06.05.2008 ---- 5,46,826/- MATURITY OF FDR 06.05.2008 1,50,000/- ---- CASH WITHDRAWAL 06.05.2008 3,50,000/- --- CASH WITHDRAWAL 06.05.2008 --- 5,40,000/- LOAN TAKEN 06.05.2008 1,20,000/- --- CASH WITHDRAWAL 07.05.2008 4,66,000/- --- CASH WITHDRAWAL 07.05.2008 --- 4,66,000/- CASH DEPOSITS 08.05.2008 4,66,000/- --- CASH WITHDRAWAL 07.07.2008 --- 10,00,000/- CASH DEPOSITS 07.07.2008 10,00,000/- --- 5 FDRS WERE MADE EACH OF RS.2,00,000/ - 4. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CHART, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER OBSERVED THAT ON 07.05.2008 ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.4,66,000/- AND ABOUT ITS SOURCE HE HAS STATED THAT THE WITHDRAWALS MADE ON THE SAME DAY AR E DEPOSITED. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESS EE IS VERY SURPRISING AS NO PRUDENT PERSON WITHDRAWS MONEY AND DEPOSITS THE SAM E AMOUNT OF MONEY IN SAME BANK ACCOUNT ON THE SAME DAY AND AGAIN WITHDRA WS THE SAME AMOUNT THE VERY NEXT DAY. HE CONDUCTED ENQUIRIES FROM THE BAN K IN THIS REGARD AND ON PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF SELF CHEQUE, THROUGH WHICH M ONEY OF RS.4,66,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN AND PAY-IN-SLIP THROUGH WHICH THE CASH OF RS.4,66,000/-WAS DEPOSITED ON 07.05.2008 HE OBSERVED THAT WITHDRAWAL WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE BY SOMEONE ELSE. FU RTHER WITHDRAWAL OF RS.4,66,000/- ON NEXT DAY I.E. ON 08.05.2008 WAS MA DE BY SHRI JASVINDER SINGH, SON OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, STRENGTHENS THE SUSPICION THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.4,66,000/- M ADE ON 07.05.2008 ARE NOT OUT 4 ITA NO.193/RPR/2013 OF THE WITHDRAWALS BUT IT IS THE UNEXPLAINED MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL, DEPO SIT THE SAME AMOUNT ON THE SAME DAY AND AGAIN WITHDRAWAL THE SAME AMOUNT ON TH E VERY NEXT DAY. THIS GIVES STRENGTH TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION THAT NO PRUD ENT PERSON DOES THIS TYPE OF TRANSACTION WITHOUT ANY BASIS. MOREOVER, ASSESSEE H AD TAKEN LOAN OF RS.5,40,000/- JUST ONE DAY BEFORE I.E. ON 6.05.2008 AND NOBODY TAKES LOAN TO WITHDRAW MONEY AND AGAIN TO DEPOSIT THE CASH AND KE EP THE FUND IDLE WITHOUT REPAYING THE LOAN. HAD HIS PURPOSE BEEN NOT FULFIL LED IMMEDIATELY HE WOULD HAVE REPAID THE LOAN AND AGAIN ON REQUIREMENT HE WO ULD HAVE APPLIED FOR THE LOAN. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAS NOT DONE SO. HENCE TH IS SUM OF RS.4,66,000/- WAS HELD BY HIM TO BE THE UNEXPLAINED MONEY OF THE ASSE SSEE WHO TRIED TO TAKE SHELTER OF ROTATION OF FUND WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.10,00,000/- ON 07.07.2008 AND MADE FDR OF RS.10, 00,000/- ON THE SAME DAY. ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS ASSESSEE ST ATED THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE EARLIER WERE DEPOSITED. THIS, ACCORDING TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS SURPRISING SINCE THE ASSESSEE TOOK LOAN OF RS.5,40, 000/- ON 06.05.2008 AND WITHDREW CASH AND AGAIN DEPOSITED FOR THE PURPOSE O F MAKING FDRS. BECAUSE FDR IN THE SAME BANK FETCHES LOWER RETURN OF INCOME THAN THE INTEREST CHARGED ON THE AMOUNT OF LOAN AND NO PRUDENT PERSON TAKES L OAN FROM THE SAME BANK FOR 5 ITA NO.193/RPR/2013 THE PURPOSE OF MAKING FDRS WITH THE SAME BANK WITHO UT ANY COMPELLING REASON THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, BENEFIT OF ROTATION OF FUND IN THE FORM OF WIT HDRAWALS AND SUBSEQUENT DEPOSITS CANNOT BE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE US E OF WITHDRAWN AND DEPOSITED FUNDS IS NOT LOGICALLY SUBSTANTIATED. MOR EOVER, NO DOMESTIC CUSTOMARY FUNCTIONS LIKE MARRIAGE CEREMONY TOOK PLACE IN THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR SO AS TO KEEP THE CASH IDLE IN HAND FROM 0 8.05.2008 TO 07.07.2008. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CO ULD HAVE EASILY DEPOSITED THE IDLE CASH IN BANK AND WHEN IN NEED HE WOULD HAVE WI THDRAWN IT. EVEN NO INTEREST WAS EARNED ON THIS FUND AND SO THIS FUND W AS KEPT IDLE. WITHOUT REPAYING THE LOAN AMOUNT ASSESSEE'S DEPOSITING CASH INTO BANK FOR MAKING FDRS IS IN COMPLETE CONTRAVENTION OF THE GENERAL PRACTIC E AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED ANY SPECIAL PURPOSE FOR DOING THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS .4,66,000/- ON 07.05.2008 AND RS.L0,00,000/- ON 07.07.2008 ARE THE UNEXPLAINE D MONEY FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AND TH EREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS.14,66,000/- WAS ADDED BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.16,14,360/- BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.14,66,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED MONEY. 6 ITA NO.193/RPR/2013 7. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE MADE ELABORA TE SUBMISSION BASED ON WHICH, THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) W AS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE MONEY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF PREV IOUS WITHDRAWALS MADE BY HIM IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CH ALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME WITH ITO, WARD-1, RAIGARH AND JURI SDICTION OF THE CASE LIES WITH JCIT, BILASPUR, WHEREAS THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD-2, BHILAI WITHOUT HAVING ANY JURISDICTION OF T HE CASE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY ITO, WARD- 2, BHILAI NO ORDER U/S 127 WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF THE CASE RECORD FROM RAIGAR TO BHILAI. THIS IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 120 OF THE I.T. ACT. 8. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE PARTICIPATED IN TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 142(3) OF THE I.T. ACT , THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RAISING THE ISSUE AT THE APPELLATE STA GE. 9. SO FAR AS MERIT OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED, LD. CI T(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.6,00,000/- AS AGAINST RS.14,66,00 0/- ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 7 ITA NO.193/RPR/2013 DECISION - I CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. AR, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE AO AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO IN THIS REGA RD AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD CAREFULLY. THE NOTICE U/S 250 O F THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, BUT THE LD. AR PREFERRED TO DISPOSE OFF THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION. AS PER THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE APP ELLANT HAVE DERIVED INCOME FROM RENDERING CONSULTANCY SERVICES TO M/S. JINDAL POWER AND STEELS LTD., KHARSIA ROAD RAIGARH ON YEARLY CONTRACTUAL APPOINTMENT. THE CONTRACTUAL APPOINTMENT AS SR. MANAGER OF THE COMPANY IS RENEWED FOR ONE YEAR FROM 1ST APRIL TO 31ST MARCH OF A FINANCIAL YEAR. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT WAS RENEWED ON 17TH APRIL 2008 FROM 01-04-2008 TO 31-03-2009 ON A CONSOLIDATED PAC KAGE OF RS. 34,000/- PER MONTH. THE APPELLANT HAS OPENED A SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT AT SBI, JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD. PATRAPALI, RAIGARH WHEREIN, SALARY ON CONTRACTUAL A PPOINTMENT HAS BEEN CREDITED. THE NET SALARY PER MONTH CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT IS RS. 30,498/-, BARRING MEAGRE DIFFERENCE IN HUNDREDS IN FEW MONTHS. ON FURTHER PE RUSAL OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT USUALLY DISCLOSES CONTRACTUAL SALARY FOR 11 MONTHS IN HIS WRITTEN OF INCOME, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SALARY OF M ARCH FOR THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEAR RECEIVED IN THE MONTH OF APRIL OF YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE YEAR. THAT APA RT, THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY CLAIMING EVERY YEAR VARIOUS EXPENSES T O BE SET OFF AGAINST THE GROSS RECEIPTS ON CONTRACT APPOINTMENT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED EXPENSES OF. RS. 2,25,637/- UNDER VARIOUS HEADS LIKE BOOKS AND PERIODICALS, STATIONARY AND OTHERS, TELEPHONE AND MOBILES TRAVEL LING EXPENSES, VEHICLE RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES, SALARY ELECTRICITY AND OTHER CHARGES REFRESHMENT WITH THE OFFICIALS, LEGAL EXPENSES, GIFTS TO OFFICIALS AMOUN T PAID FOR CONTRACT WORKS AT SITE, TECHNICAL CONSULTANCY ETC .. THE BALANCE OF RS. 1,4 8,368/- OUT OF GROSS RECEIPT OF RS.3.74,000/- I.E. GROSS SALARY FOR 11 MONTHS HAS B EEN SHOWN AS INCOME WITH NO TAX LIABILITY AND REFUND ON TDS OF RS. 38,522/- HAS BEE N CLAIMED. THUS, WHEN THE NATURE OF RECEIPT IS CONTRACTUAL SALARY THOUGH TERMINOLOGY USED IS PAYMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL SERVICES, THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE EXP ENSES HAS NOT BEEN QUESTIONED BY THE AO. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS RS. 1,48,368/- IN HA ND FOR HIS PERSONAL EXPENSES AND INVESTMENT. AS PER HIS STATEMENT GIVEN BEFORE THE A O, HE HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME AND HIS WIFE IS HAVING NO INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME AS WELL. AS PER HIS STATEMENT, THE APPELLANT STAYS AT PLACE OF POSTING AND HIS FAMILY AT BHILAI. IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS NO SAVINGS FROM HIS FEES FROM CONTRACTUAL SERVICES AFTER MEETING OUT MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF TWO ESTABLISHMENT, ONE AT RAIGARH AND OTHER AT BHILAI AND THUS, THE SO URCE OF DEPOSIT OTHER THAN THE DEPOSITS OUT OF HIS SALARY CREDITED TO HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT AT SBI, PATRAPALI OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED INDEPENDENTLY. IN THE ALLE GED BANK ACCOUNT THE TOTAL CREDITS AND DEBITS OF THE YEAR WERE RS. 8,48,096/- AND RS.7 ,11,970/- RESPECTIVELY. THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 30,000/-, RS. 20,000/- AND RS. 2,00,000/- ON 06-05-2008,08-05- 2008 AND ON 11-11-2008 RESPECTIVELY. THE CASH DEPOS ITS WERE MADE TO PURCHASE FDRS WITH THE BANK. REGARDING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS AND PURPOSE OF WIT HDRAWALS IN OTHER BANK ACCOUNT WITH CANERA BANK, BHILAI, THERE WAS NO CLAR IFICATION IN THIS REGARD EITHER AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE OR AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. I F IND THAT THE ARGUMENT OF THE 8 ITA NO.193/RPR/2013 APPELLANT REGARDING PURPOSE OF TAKING LOAN AGAINST THE FDRS WITH THE END PURPOSE OF INVESTING THE SAME FOR PURCHASING FDRS AND THEREBY FACING LOSS IS MISPLACED IN COMMON PARLANCE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC EXPLANA TION FORTHCOMING VIZ-A-VIZ THE GENERAL EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE LD. AR, THE BU RDEN IS STILL UPON THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN AND JUSTIFY THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWN ON SOME PARTICULAR DATES ARE THE SAME CASH AVAILABLE WITH HIM FOR RE-DEPOSITS INTO HIS BA NK ACCOUNT. IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT EVEN IF ROTA TION OF CASH IS CONSIDERED, THE DEPOSITS OF RS. 17,16,000/- (RS. 14,66,0001- + RS. 2,50,000/-) COULD HAVE BEEN SOURCED OUT FROM KNOWN SOURCE OF RS. 5,46,826/- I.E . MATURITY OF FDRS CREDITED ON 06- 05-2008 AND LOAN OF RS. 5,40,000/- CREDITED ON 06-0 5-2008 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH CANARA BANK AND THUS, THE APPELLANT HAS STILL THE O NUS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS OF RS. 6,00,000/- (RS. 6,29,174/- ROUNDED OFF TO LAKHS). ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION ON THIS COUNT IS RESTRICTED AND CONFIRMED AT RS. 6,00,000/-. 10. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.14,66,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DE POSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH CANARA BANK. THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT MONEY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS OUT OF PREVIOUS W ITHDRAWALS WAS DISBELIEVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH DE POSITS ARE NOT OUT OF PREVIOUS WITHDRAWALS BUT IT IS THE UNEXPLAINED MONE Y OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT ESTABLISH THE REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL AND THEN DEPOSIT THE SAME AMOUNT ON THE SAME DATE AND AGAIN WITHDRAW THE SAME AMOUNT ON THE VERY NEXT DATE. WE FIND THE LD. CIT(A) 9 ITA NO.193/RPR/2013 SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.6,00,000/- OUT OF RS.1 4,66,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE REASONS OF WHICH ARE ALREADY REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SENIOR CITIZEN BEING 75 YEARS OLD. D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE DEPOSIT OF R S.5,46,826/- ON 06.05.2018 WAS ON ACCOUNT OF MATURITY OF FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT S, DEPOSIT OF RS.5,40,000/- ON 06.05.2008 WAS OUT OF THE LOAN TAKEN. THE DEPOSIT OF RS.4,66,000/- ON 07.05.2008 IS OUT OF WITHDRAWAL ON THE SAME DAY. T HE AMOUNT OF RS.10,00,000/- DEPOSITED ON 07.07.2008 IS AGAIN OUT OF WITHDRAWAL OF RS.10,86,000/- FROM CANARA BANK FROM 06.05.2008 TO 08.05.2008 THIS ACCORDING TO THE AR FULLY EXPLAINS THE SOURCE OF DE POSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE CASH HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN ON THE SAME DAY WHICH HAS BEEN AGAIN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ALTHOUGH IT RAISES SOME SUSPICION AS TO WHY A PERSON WILL WITHD RAW THE MONEY AND DEPOSIT THE SAME AGAIN IN THE BANK ON THE SAME DAY OR IN TH E VERY NEXT DAY, HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE REVENUE HAS NO OT HER INFORMATION OR MATERIAL WITH IT ABOUT ANY INVESTMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE OUT O F THE MONEY WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK. THE LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT A PERSON FROM WITHDRAWING THE MONEY FROM THE BANK AND AGAIN REDEPOSIT THE SAME. IT IS THE S ETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT 10 ITA NO.193/RPR/2013 PRESUMPTIONS AND SURMISES, HOWEVER, STRONG MAYBE/CA NNOT BE THE BASIS FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IN THE INS TANT CASE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT AS OUT OF WITHDRAWAL OF THE MONEY FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE REVENUE HAS NO MATERIAL IN ITS POSITION TO SUBS TANTIATE THAT THE MONEY SO WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK HAS BEEN UTILIZED ELSEWHERE AND THAT THE MONEY WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,00,000/-. WE, THEREFORE, SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AN D DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 25-09-2018. SUJEET COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT 4) THE CIT(A) 5) THE DR, I.T.A.T., RAIPUR. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, RAIPUR