Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh, Ludhiana V. DCIT, C-7, Ludhiana

ITA 61/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5011 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRAKANTA SR DR
• Keywords: Source of fund
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BEN CHES, SMC CHANDIGARH .., ! BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 61 /CHD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SH. MOHINDER PAL SINGH 8-A, TAGORE NAGAR LUDHIANA THE DCIT CIRCLE-7, LUDHIANA PAN NO: ADVPS2237F APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL GOYAL, CA #!' REVENUE BY : SMT. CHANDRAKANTA, SR. DR $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 16/07/2019 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/08/2019 '#/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 18/09/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-3, LUDHIANA. 2. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS. 16,40,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED MONEY UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27/03/2011 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 4,99,500/-. L ATER ON A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S CEIGALL I NDIA LIMITED AND M/S CEIGAL HIGHWAYS. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY A COPY OF ALL OTMENT LETTER FOR FLAT NO. C- 103, PARK VIEW SPA, SECTOR-14,GURGAON IN THE NAME O F ASSESSEE AND SMT. PARAMJIT KAUR FOR A VALUE OF RS. 1,43,31,250/- DT. 23/09/2009 WAS FOUND. THE A.O. REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE AC T AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS THAT THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,60,3 0,265/- ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND ALSO COME FORWARD TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITE D IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC TION 148 SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED ON 27/03/2011 MAY BE TREATE D THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 2 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 52,05, 000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CAS H DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH RECEIVED WAS FROM M/S CEIGALL BUILDERS PVT. LTD. AND ALSO FURNISHED D ETAILS OF REPAYMENT TO M/S CEIGALL INDIA LTD., ON VARIOUS DATES OUT OF CASH WI THDRAWAL FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE DETAIL SUBMITTED WAS AS UNDER: DATE AMOUNT OF REPAYMENT (RS.) REMARKS 12.10.2009 16,40,000 IT IS CLARIFIED HERE THAT THE SAID ENTRY HAS BEEN WRONGLY POSTED ON 12.10.2009 INSTEAD OF 21.10.2009 IN THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF COMPANY AND THERE WAS SELF- WITHDRAWAL OF THE SAME AMOUNT ON 21.10.2009 FROM PNB SAVING ACCOUNT BEARING A/C NO. 2406000100117800 15.12.2009 7,25,000 THERE WAS SELF WITHDRAWAL OF THE SAME AMOUNT ON 15.12.2009 FROM PNB SAVINGS ACCOUNT BEARING NO. 240600010011 7800 23.01.2010 1,40,000 THERE WAS SELF WITHDRAWAL OF TH E SAME AMOUNT ON 23.01.2010 FROM PNB SAVINGS ACCOUNT BEARING NO. 24060001001 1 7800 19.02.2010 27,00,000 'THERE WAS SELF WITHDRAWAL OF THE SAME AMOUNT ON 19.02.2010 FROM PNB SAVINGS ACCOUNT BEARING NO. 240600010011 7800 5. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE AFORESAID PAYMENTS TO M/S CEIGALL INDIA LTD. MAY NOT BE ADDED TO HIS INCOME. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 1. YOUR GOODSELF HAS ASKED AS TO WHY THE PAYMENTS M ADE BY M/S CEIGAL INDIA LTD. (THE COMPANY') FOR THE PURCHASE OF FLAT FOR THE ASSESSEE OR FOR OTHER PERSONA! PAYMENTS IN THE NATURE OF INSURANCE PREMIU M AND CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS ETC. FOR THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE TREATE D AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THIS RESPECT, WE HAVE ALREADY FILED A DETAILED R EPLY IN THE FORM OF OBJECTIONS DATED OCTOBER 16, 2017 FILED BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF. IT IS AGAIN REITERATED THAT THE SAID PAYMENTS ARE IN THE NATURE OF LOANS GIVEN BY T HE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE AND HAVE BEEN ACCORDINGLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY. WE HAVE ALREADY FILED THE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE SAID PAYMENTS MADE BY THE COMPANY ARE DEBITED T O THE ASSESSEE AND THE REPAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CREDITED TO HIS ACCOUNT. THUS, THERE IS NO INCOME ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THESE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE COMPANY. 2. YOUR GOODSELF HAS ASKED AS TO WHY REPAYMENTS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE COMPANY AMOUNTING TO RS.52,05,000 MAY NOT BE AD DED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS RESPECT WE HAVE ALREADY FILED BEF ORE YOUR GOODSELF THE DETAILS OF THE DEPOSITS AND THE CORRESPONDING WITHDRAWALS BEIN G MADE BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE OBJECTIONS DATED OCTOBER 16, 2017 AND THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT DULY SIGNED AND STAMPED BY THE BANK VIDE REPLY DATE D NOVEMBER 15, 2017. THUS, THERE ARE CORRESPONDING WITHDRAWALS FOR EVERY CASH REPAYMENT AND MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UTILIZED THE SAID WITHDRAWALS FOR HIS OWN USE. THE DATE-WISE EXPLANATION OF THE SOURCES OF THE CASH AS REQUIRED BY YOUR GOODSELF IS PROVIDED AS UNDER:- 3 DATE AMOUNT REMARKS 12.10.2009 16,40,000 WITH REGARD TO THE SAME IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THERE HAS BEEN CORRESPONDING CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BA NK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21.10.2009 AND IT IS TO BE APPRECIATED THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN INADVERTENT ERRO R OF RECORDING THE DATE IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY AS 12.10.2009 INSTEAD OF 21.10.2009 BUT THE SAME CANNO T BE DENIED THAT SUCH WITHDRAWAL HAS BEEN MADE FROM THE ASSESSEE'S ACCOUNT AND HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED ANYWHE RE ELSE,- 15.12.2009 7,25,000 THERE IS A CLEAR CASH-WITHDRAWA L MENTIONED IN THE BANK STATEMENT ON THE SAME DATE AND OF THE SAME AMOUNT. FURTHER, IT IS CLARIFIED HERE THAT THE BANK WITHDRA WAL ON 15.12.2009 AMOUNTING TO RS.725000 WAS ACTUALLY SELF - WITHDRAWAL MADE BY ONE OF THE COMPANY'S EMPLOYEE NAMELY RAKESH BHANDARI AND THUS, ON THE PARTICULARS OF THE BANK STATEMENT THE NARRATION WAS WRITTEN AS RAKESH BHANDARI EVEN IF THE SAME WAS ACTUALLY CASH WITHDR AWAL. THIS FACT HAVE BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE BANK ITSELF VIDE CERTIFICATE DATED 16.11.2017 ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-. SOMETIMES, IT IS VERY MUCH A PRACTICE TH AT THE NAME OF THE PERSON MAKING THE SELF-WITHDRAWAL IS ME NTIONED BY THE BANK IN THEIR SYSTEM AND THUS, THE SOURCE ST ANDS EXPLAINED. 23.01.2010 1,40,000 WITH REGARD TO THE SAME IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THERE ' HAS BEEN CORRESPONDING CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BA NK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE SAME AMOUNT FURTHER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ISSUED A SELF CHEQU E TO THE COMPANY ON 23.01.2010 AND THE SAME WAS RECORDED \ A S SUCH IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY ON THE SAID DATE W HEREAS THE ENCASHMENT OF THE SAID CHEQUE HAS BEEN MADE ON 25.10.2010 BUT THE SAME CANNOT BE DENIED THAT SUCH WITHDRAWAL HAS BEEN MADE FROM THE ASSESSEE'S ACCOUN T AND HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED ANYWHERE ELSE. 19.02.2010 27,00,000 THERE IS A CLEAR CASH WITHDRAW AL MENTIONED IN THE BANK STATEMENT ON THE SAME DATE AND OF THE SAME AMOUNT. FURTHERMORE, YOUR GOODSELF DURING THE LAST HEARING HAVE CALLED FOR THE EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THAT THE WITHDRA WAL OF RS. 27,00,000 MADE ON 19.02.2010 WAS ACTUALLY THE RECTI FIED ENTRY MADE BY THE BANK WHICH WAS WRONGLY DEBITED AS RS. 3,00,000 INSTEAD OF RS. 30,00,000/-. WITH REGARD TO THE SAME WE ARE FILING BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF THE CERTIFICATE (AS ENCLOSED ABOVE) ISSUED BY THE BANK ACKNOWLEDGING TH E FACT THAT THE CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 30,00,000 HAS BEE N MISTAKENLY DEBITED BY RS. 3,00,000 AND IN ORDER TO RECTIFY THE SAME THE BANK HAS AGAIN MANUALLY DEBITED THE ASSESS EES ACCOUNT WITH RS. 27,00,000. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A SSESSEE, A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE COMPANY M/S CEIGALL INDIA LTD. HAD SHOWN T HE ENTRY OF RS. 16,40,000/- IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON 12/10/2009 WHERE AS THE ASS ESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN THIS AMOUNT ON 21/10/2009. THE A.O. HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF REPAYMENT OF RS.16,40,000/-. HE THERE FORE TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. 4 7. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 1.2 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS REGULARLY WITHDRAWN CASH FROM HIS PERS ONAL BANK ACCOUNT AND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY AS AND WHEN REQUIRED BY THE COMPANY AND HAS WITHDRAWN CASH FROM THE BANK ACCOUN T OF THE COMPANY AND DEPOSITED IN HIS PERSONAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS AS AND W HEN REQUIRED BY HIM. THE SAME HAS BEEN DULY DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS MAINTAINED BY THE COMPANY. IN ONE OF THE REASONS OF REOPENING THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS BEEN ALLEGED THAT OUT OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS, THE RE ARE CERTAIN PAYMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS.52,05,000 WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE TO THE COMPANY, BUT AGAINST WHICH THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY CO RRESPONDING WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE (COPY OF THE SAID REASONS REPRODUCED ON PAGES 4-8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). 1.2 DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE DULY FURNISHED THE SOURCES OF THE SAID REPAYMENTS BACKED BY THE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS DEPICTING THE CORRESPONDIN G CASH WITHDRAWALS. (REPRODUCED ON PAGES 21-23 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) THE SAID SOURCES OF THE CASH DEPOSIT WAS ACCEPTED, HOWEVER, THERE WAS ONE P ARTICULAR REPAYMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 16,40,000 WHICH EVEN THOUGH HAS A CORRESPONDING WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, WAS RECORDED ON THE DIFFERENT DATE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY AND TH US, WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AO. 1.3 WITH REGARD TO THE SAME, AT THE OUTSET IT IS SUBMIT TED THAT THE SOURCES AS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS ALSO INCLUDES THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE SAVINGS ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE FROM WHICH THERE WAS A CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 16,40,000 AND TH E SAME WAS WITHDRAWN ON 21.10.2009, HOWEVER, DUE TO AN INADVERTENT ERROR TH E SAME HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY AS 12.10.2009 INSTEAD OF 2 1.10.2009. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THERE ISN'T ANY CORRESPONDING CASH WI THDRAWAL OF THE SAID AMOUNT FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IT IS ONL Y BECAUSE OF ONE MISTAKE OF RECORDING OF THE DATE, BECAUSE OF WHICH THE LD. AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SOURCE OF THE SAID REPAYMENT. 1.4 FURTHER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REG ULAR AND AN INDEPENDENT INCOME TAX ASSESSEE FILING HIS RETURN OF INCOME FRO M THE PAST MANY YEARS. THE SOURCES OF INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETU RN OF INCOME FROM THE SAID MANY YEARS ARE SALARY FROM CEIGALL BUILDERS PVT. LT D., CAPITAL GAINS OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE SAME HAS BEEN REGULARLY ACCEP TED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THUS, WHEN THERE ARE NO OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME FRO M WHICH THE ASSESSEE EARNS HIS INCOME, THEN THE SOURCE OF THE SAID CASH REPAYM ENT CANNOT BE OTHER THAN THE SAID SELF-WITHDRAWAL MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND MOREO VER, WHEN THERE ARE REGULAR CORRESPONDING WITHDRAWALS OF CASH OF THE SAME AMOUN T AND WHEN THERE IS A FIXED MODUS OPERANDI WHICH IS PRIMA FACIE CLEAR FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS FILED BEFORE THE LD. AO. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS HIMSELF TABULATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE TOTAL CASH WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE COMPANY IS RS. 58.05 LAKHS WHICH HAS BEEN CORRESPONDINGLY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND O N THE OTHER HAND, THERE ARE TOTAL CASH WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 82.07 LAKHS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE THEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY AS REPAYMENT AND DEPOSITED IN ITS BRANCH ACCOUNT. MOREOVER, WE ARE A LSO ENCLOSING BEFORE YOUR GOODSELFTHE CASH BOOK OF THE COMPANY FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 2009, FROM A PERUSAL OF WHICH IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COMPANY HAS S UFFICIENT CASH IN HAND IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DURING THE MONTH AND THE COMPANY DOES NOT NEED TO INTENTIONALLY RECORD ANY ENTRY BEFORE THE DATE OF A CTUAL CASH WITHDRAWAL WHICH MAKES IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS MERELY A TYPOGRAPHICAL E RROR. THUS, THERE CANNOT BE POSSIBLY ANY REASON OF -WITHDRAWING SUCH A SUBSTANT IAL AMOUNT FOR THE UTILIZATION OF THE SAME FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, SPECIALLY WHEN NO S UCH PURPOSE HAS BEEN NOTICED BY THE LD. AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS. 5 1.5 THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE IMPUGNED CASH WITHDRAWAL IS SIMILAR TO THE OTHER CASH WITHDRAWAL MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS OWN BANK ACCOUNT AND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS OF THE COMPANY WHICH WAS ALSO OF THE SAME AMOUNT AND WHICH HAS BEE N ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, DUE TO TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR THE SAME WAS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY ON 12 .10.2009 INSTEAD OF 21.10.2009 AND THUS, IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAID CASH WITHDRAWAL DESERVE S TO BE DELETED AND OBLIGE. 7.1. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT THERE WAS A CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 16,40,000/- ON 21/10/2009 HOWEVER DUE TO INADVERTEN T ERROR THE SAME HAD BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE COMPANY AS 12/10/2009 INSTEAD OF 21/10/2009. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO UNDERSTAN D THE DIRECT LINK WITH THE CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 21/10/2009 AND THE NEXUS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF GETTING THE SAME CASH DEPO SITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON 12/10/2009. SHE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE FREQUENT CASH WITHDRAWN AND THE DEPOSIT OF THE SAME MONEY GETTING DEBITED I N THE BANK ACCOUNT VICE VERSA HAS NO DIRECT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF BEING T HE SAME MONEY. SHE THEREFORE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. 8. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 9. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS HAVING THE SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE IN HANDS ON 12/10/2009 AND THAT EVEN ON ALL THE OTHER DATES THE CLOSING BALANCE FROM 01/10/2009 TO 23/10/ 2009 WAS MORE THAN RS. 2,00,00,000/- ON EACH DATE. HOWEVER, INADVERTENTLY THE WITHDRAWAL FOR RS. 16,40,000/- WAS WRONGLY RECORDED ON 12/10/2009 INST EAD OF ACTUAL WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 21/10/2009. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING MORE THAN RS. 2,00,00,000/- CAS H IN HAND ALWAYS DURING THE PERIOD FROM 01/10/2009 TO 23/10/2009, THEREFORE, WH ETHER THE ENTRY COULD BE RECORDED ON 21/10/2009 OR ON 12/10/2009 IT WOULD NO T HAVE BEEN MADE ANY DIFFERENCE AS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT CASH WAS ALWAYS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGE NO. 3 TO 14 OF THE A SSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE COPY OF CASH BOOKS FOR THE AFORESAID P ERIOD. 10. IN HER RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR STRONGL Y SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD MADE THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 21/10/2009 BUT IT WAS RECORDED IN THE 6 BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON 12/10/2009, THEREFORE THE RECE IPT OF CASH ON 12/10/2009 WAS NOT FULLY EXPLAINED, AS SUCH THE A.O. RIGHTLY M ADE THE ADDITION AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE SAME. 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN TH E PRESENT CASE IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT CAS H IN HAND FROM 01/10/2009 TO 22/10/2009, COPY OF WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF THE CASH BOOK PLACED AT PAGE NO. 3 TO 14 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHICH REVEALED THAT THE CASH IN HAND ON EACH OF THE AFORESAID DATES WAS MORE THAN R S. 2,00,00,000/-, THEREFORE THE EXPLANATION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 16,40, 000/- WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK WAS ENTERED ON 12/10/2009 OR 21/10/2009 IN THE CASH BOOK. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN AN AMOUNT O F RS. 16,40,000/- FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 21/10/2009 AND ON THE SAID DATE TH ERE IS NO ENTRY IN THE CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME AMOUNT HAS BEEN E NTERED ON 12/10/2009 IN THE CASH BOOKS AND IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. T HAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS UTILIZED ELS EWHERE THEREFORE THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT INADVERTENTL Y THE ENTRY WAS MADE ON 12/102009 INSTEAD OF 21/10/2009 APPEARS TO BE PLAUS IBLE. I THEREFORE, BY CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS DEEM IT APPRO PRIATE TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/08/2019 ) SD/- .., ( N.K. SAINI) ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 20/08/2019 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE