SHRI KRISHNA S. CHAMANKAR , MUMBAI V. ACIT - 24(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7125/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6840 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Set aside
• Section: 68; 142(1); 143(1); 201; 143(2); 13; 22; 20

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI AMARJEET SINGH , JM AND HONBLE SHRI MAN OJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING MODE) ./ I.T.A. NO. 7125 /MUM/201 9 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 ) SHRI KRISHNA S. CHAMANKAR A - 1001, ADITI C.H.S.L, SVP NAGAR, VERSOVA TELEX, ANDHERI (WEST) MUMBAI - 400 053 / VS. ACIT 24(2), R. NO. 613, 6 TH FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, PAREL, MUMBAI - 400 012 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO . A ABPC - 8588 - L ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANIL SATHE, LD. AR REVENUE BY : S HRI GURBINDER SINGH, LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 12 /07 /2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/07/2021 / O R D E R AMARJI T SINGH ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) 1 . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AG AINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - 36, MUMBA I, DATED 30.08 .2 019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16 . 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 2 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN GRANTING ONLY PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT BY UPHOLDING DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 33,34,000/ - ON ACCO UNT OF CASH DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING TH E DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 33,34,000/ - IN SPITE OF THE APPELLANT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK AND THUS DISCHARGING THE PRIMARY ONUS CAS T ON HIM. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN PARTIALLY UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS MADE PURELY ON THE CONJECTURES AND SURMISES WITHOUT BRINGING AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE EXISTENCE OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCE OF INCOME. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A DIFFERENCE IN DENOMINATIONS OF CASH WITHDRAWALS AND CASH DEPOSITS GIVES RISE TO PRESUMPTION THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE NOT OUT OF CASH WITHDRA WALS OR EXISTING CASH BALANCE AND REPRESENT INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT CURRENCY IS FUNGIBLE, CAN EASILY GET EXCHANGED IN THE DAY - TO - DAY TRANSACTIONS AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO KEEP TRACK OF ALL DENOMINATIONS O F THE CURRENCY NOTES. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL, AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.03.17 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 46,12,070/ - FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE S U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) WERE ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RES PONSE, AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AS CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER IN M/S K. S. CHAMANKAR ENTERPRISES WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. 3 THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPRISES OF INCOME FROM OTHE R SOURCES IN THE NATURE OF INTEREST INCOME. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CARRY HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE DETAILS OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE CALLED FOR. THE BACK STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE WAS DOUBTED THAT CE RTAIN CREDIT ENTRIES WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX, THEREFORE AO REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS WHICH ARE GIVEN AS UNDER: - DATE BANK PARTICULARS AMOUNT 24.05.2013 ICICI TRF FROM 6907 AN U 6,00,000 10.12.2013 ICICI TRF FROM 537665 2,00,000 10 .03.2014 ICICI TRF - FROM K.S. CHA 1,00,000 22.03.2014 ICICI TRF FROM 085334 10,35,000 26.03.2014 ICICI TRF FROM K.S. CHAM 10,00,000 28.04.2014 ICICI RTGS 4,00,000 29.04.2014 ICICI CHAMANKAR KRISHNA 4,00,000 06.06.2014 ICICI GENER AL EDUCATION 4,00,000 02.07.2014 ICICI RTGS 10,00,000 22.08.2014 ICICI TRFR FROM K. S.CHAM 15,00,000 05.09.2014 ICICI RTGS NKGSB 60,00,000 26.06.2014 NKGSB DISBURSE MORTGAGE 2,00,00,000 26.06.2014 SARASWAT INT. FQBULK 10,68,750 29.09.2014 SARASWAT INT. FQBULK 10,68,750 29.12.2014 SARASWAT INT. FQBULK 10,68,750 4 4 . THE ASSESSEE REPLIED TO THE CREDIT AS WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSIT. THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ACCOUNT IN DIFFERENT BANKS I.E. ICICI BANKS, NKGSB CO - OP BANK LTD AND SAR ASWAT BANK, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: - ICICI BANK A/C NO. 021101004137 SR. NO. PARTICULARS. ~ DATE ON WHICH CASH DEPOSITED AMOUNT (RS.) 1. BY CASH MUMBAI 22 - 08 - 2014 15,00,000 / - 2. BY CASH MUMBAI 25 - 08 - 2014 2,00,000/ - 3. BY CASH MUMBAI 10 - 09 - 201 4 3,00,000/ - 4. BY CASH MUMBAI 07 - 10 - 2014 30,00,000/ - 5. BY CASH MUMBAI 08 - 10 - 2014 40,000 / - 6. BY CASH MUMBAI 20 - 10 - 2014 5,00,000 / - 7. BY CASH MUMBAI 21 - 10 - 2014 6,50,000/ - TOTAL 61,90,000/ - NKGSB CO - OP BANK LTD. A/C N0.03410 0100001768 SR. NO. PARTICULARS. DATE ON WHICH CASH DEPOSITED AMOUNT (RS.) 1. BY CASH MUMBAI 03 - 09 - 2014 5,000 / - 2 BY CASH 25 - 11 - 2014 1,00,00 0/ - 3 BY CASH 27 - 02 - 2015 4,00,000 / - TOTAL 5,05,000/ - SARASWAT BANK A/C NO. SR. NO. PARTICUL ARS. DATE ON WHICH CASH DEPOSITED AMOUNT (RS.) 1. BY CASH MUMBAI 20 - 10 - 2014 2,00,00 0/ - 2 BY CASH MUMBAI 07 - 02 - 2015 20,000 / - 5 3 BY CASH MUMBAI 28 - 02 - 2015 25,000/ - 4 BY CASH MUMBAI 6 - 03 - 2015 10,000 / - TOTAL 2,55,000/ - ICICI BANK A/C NO. 10205000293 SR. NO.. PARTICULARS. DATE ON WHICH CASH DEPOSITED AMOUNT (RS.) 1 BY CASH 14 - 11 - 2014 3,50,000/ - 2 - BY CASH 23 - 03 - 2015 2,00,000/ - TOTAL 5,50,000/ - TOTAL CASH DEPOSITED IN THE ABOVE BANK ACCOUNTS 75,00,000/ - 5 . FROM THE ABOVE, CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 75,00,000/ - WAS NOT FOUND JUSTIFIABLE AND ADDED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,21,12,074/ - . 6 . FEELING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 33,34,000/ - AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 . AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE, ASSESSEE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE US ON THE AFOREMENTIONED GROUNDS. 8 . GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 ARE INTER - RELATED AND INTER - CONNECTED RELATES TO RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 33,34,000/ - , THEREFORE WE ADJUDICATE THESE GROUN DS ALTOGETHER . L D. A R APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT WITHDRAWAL OF CASH OF SPECIFIC DENOMINAT ION IS NOT REQUIRED TO MATCH WITH THE DEPOSIT OF NOTES OF SPECIFIC DENOMINATION. 6 THEREFORE, RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS. 33,34,000/ - IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED. 9 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIE D UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 10 . BEFORE GOING THROUGH THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE , WE DEEM IT FIT TO PERUSE THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A ), WHICH ARE AS UNDER: - 4. DECISION: I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE: THE VIEWS TAK EN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ALONG WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND HAVE ARRIVED AT THE FOLLOWING VIEW WHICH IS AS UNDER: 4.1.1 IN GROUND OF APPEAL NOS. 1 TO 3 THE APPELLANT HAS OBJECTED TO THE ADDITION OF RS 75,00,000/ - MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE DENOMINATION OF CASH WITHDRAWN AND RE - DEPOSITED AS WELL AS THE TIME LAG BETWEEN WITHDRAWAL OF THE CASH AND THE SUBSEQUENT REDEPOSIT. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND A PARTNER IN M/S K.S. CHAMANKAR ENTERPRISES,A PARTNERSHI P FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME 31.03.2017 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.46,12,070/ - . THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED UNDER SCRUTINY TO VERIFY THE LARGE CASH DEPOSITS IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNTS. THE AO HELD THAT AS THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE DENOMINATIONS OF THE CASH WITHDRAWN AND DEPOSITED COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE WITHDRAWALS WERE MADE IN DENOMINATION OF RS. 1000/ - AND RS.500/ - WHICH DOES NOT MATCH WITH THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE DENOMINATION OF RS. 1000/ - AND RS. 500A. THERE WAS REASON TO CONCLUDE THAT THE DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 75,00,000/ - REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND THEREFORE ADDED THE SAME U/S 68. 4.1.2 PER CONTRA: THE APPELLANT STATED THAT THAT THE ADDITION IS MADE SOLELY ON ACCOUNT O F THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE SAME CURRENCY NOTES SHOULD BE DEPOSITED WHICH HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE LEARNED AO DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT MONEY IS FUNGIBLE. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN 7 MADE UNDER SECTION 68. IT IS NOT IN DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD THE REQUISITE CASH BALANCE TO MAKE THE CASH DEPOSITS THAT HE DID. IN FACT, THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THEMSELVES WERE FULLY EXPLAINED BY THE CASH BALANCE IN THE CASHBOOK. WHAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SOUGHT TO DO IS TO DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CASH T HAT WAS WITHDRAWN AND THE CASH THAT WAS DEPOSITED AND THEREAFTER, RELYING ON THE PRINCIPLE OF HUMAN PROBABILITY, DRAWN A CONCLUSION THAT SINCE THE DENOMINATIONS DID NOT MATCH THE SUBSEQUENT DEPOSITS, THE DEPOSITS WERE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME AND T HEREFORE UNEXPLAINED. 4.1.3 IT IS PERFECTLY WITHIN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY THAT CURRENCY NOTES WHICH WERE WITHDRAWN BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE BANK, GOT EXCHANGED DURING THE COURSE OF DAY TO DAY TRANSACTIONS, - AND IT IS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY PERSO N TO KEEP TRACK OR RECORD OF ALL THE DENOMINATIONS OF THE CURRENCY NOTES. THE APPELLANT STATED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED 3 AGRICULTURAL PLOTS AT VENGURLE FOR TOTAL COST OF RS. 90.00,000/ - . HE WANTED TO UTILIZE THESE AGRICULTURAL PLOTS FOR PLANTATION OF COCONUT TREES AND WANTED TO PURCHASE ABOUT 2000 COCONUT SAPLINGS ALONG WITH FERTILIZERS AND WANTED TO INSTALL DRIP IRRIGATION AND FENCING OF THE LAND. HOWEVER, SINCE THE DEALS DID NOT MATERIALIZE THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT WAS RE - DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNTS BY WAY OF CASH. HE ALSO STATED THAT WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING FOR USE OF THE CASH WITHDRAWAL FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE, THEREFORE THE ADDITION IS MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION AND ASSUMPTION WHICH IS NOT ACCORDING TO LAW. FURT HER, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT IS ALSO NOT SUSTAINABLE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE PROOF OF SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED. THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS: SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. MOHANAKALA (2007) 291 ITR 278/161 TAXMAN 169 ROSHANDI HAITI VS. CIT (1977) 107 ITR 938 (SC) A. GOVINDARAJULUMUDALIAR VS. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) SIKRI& CO. P. LTD. VS. CIT 106 ITR 682, 688 CIT VS. KULWANTKAUR 121 ITR 914, CIT VS. SAHIBGA NJ ELECTRIC CABLES P. LTD. 115 ITR 408, 414. 4.1.4 AFTER CAREFULLY GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE VIEWS ENUMERATED BY ME AO, I AM 8 OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN HIS JUDGEMENT WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBSTANTIALLY PROVED THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS, GIVEN HIS EXPLANATIONS AS TO WHY THE CASH WAS WITHDRAWN. MOST IMPORTANTLY THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED ANY REASONED FINDINGS OF THE USAGE OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS ELSEWHERE NOR DISPUTE D THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS. THE HON'BLE ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OFACJT VS. BALDW RAJ CHAWLA 121 TTJ (DEL) 366 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIEL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND CORRECT THAT AGAINST THESE FIVE DEPOSITS ON DT. 14TH JUNE. 1996, RS. 31,000: 21ST JULY, 1997, RS. 1,27,000/ - . 18TH SEPT.. 1997, RS. 22,000; 4TH OCT., 1 997, RS. 26,000 AND ON 7TH NO V. 1997, RS. 52.000 THERE WERE SUFFICIENT CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM AWL AND FROM SBL MAYAPURI, BUT THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE BASIS THAT THERE IS TIME GAP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE'S WITHDRA WALS FROM HIS OWN PARTNERSHIP M/ S AWL OR JRO M HIS OWN BANK. THERE IS NO FINDING RECORDED BY THE LEARNED AO OR BY LEARNED CIT (A) THAT APART FROM DEPOSITING THESE CASH INTO BANK AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS ANY OTHER USE BY THE ASSESSEE OF THESE AMOUNTS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, SIMPLY B ECAUSE THERE WAS A TIME GAP, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REJECTED AND HENCE THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CITCA) IS NOT CORRECT. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ' 4.1.5 AS PER THE TABULAR FORM SUBMITTED BELOW BY THE APPELLANT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO RS. 33,34,000/ - (6668 X RS. 500) ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTFALL IN THE CURRENCY NOTES OF RS. 500 DEPOSITED ON 7 OCTOBER 2014, ASSUMING THAT THE BALANCE OF SUCH NOTES AS O N THE SAID DATE WAS ONLY 102. AMOUNT (RS) NO. OF NOTES IN DENOMINATION OF RS. 1,000 NO. OF NOTES IN DENOMINATION OF RS. 500 DIFFERENCE UNRECONCILED OPENING BALANCE OF CASH 14,60,000 1460 (ASSUMED) NIL (ASSUMED) 9 ADD: WITHDRAWAL DURING THE PERIOD F ROM 13 JUNE 2014 TO 14 AUG2014 2,93,000 42 502 BALANCE AS ON 14 AUG 2014 17,53,000 1502 502 LESS: DEPOSITED ON 22' A & 25 TH AUG 2014 (17,00,000) (1500) (400) BALANCE AS ON 25 AUG 2014 53,000 02 102 ADD: WITHDRAWAL DURING THE PERIOD FR OM 26 AUG TO 09 SEP 2014 60,35,000 6035 BALANCE AS ON 09 SEP 2014 60,88,000 6037 102 LESS: DEPOSITED DURING PERIOD FROM 7 OCT TO 21 OCT 2014 (41,90,000) (805) (102) 6668 NOTES OF RS 500 4.1.6 APPLYING THE PROPOSITION AS LAID DOWN BY THE VARIOUS 'TRIBUNALS TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I HAVE TO HOLD THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO RS. 33,34,000/ - (6668 X RS. 500) AS COMPUTED IN PARAGRAPH NO. 4.4 ABOVE. IN MY VIEW, THE ADDITION IS MADE BY THE AO ON INFERENCES AND PRESUMPTIONS, WHICH IS BAD IN LAW. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ADDITION, MADE U/S 68 OF RS.75,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IS HEREBY RESTRICTED RS.33,34,000/ - .THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW RELIEF OF RS 41,66,000/ - . ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS PARTLY ALLOWED 11 . ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FINDINGS , WE NOTICE D THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 33,34,000/ - WHICH D ID NOT MATCH WITH THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE DENOMINATION OF RS. 1000/ - AND RS. 500/ - NOTES. THE DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN DIFFERENT DATES. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE TO KEEP THE WITHDRAWALS OF SPECIFIC DENOMINATION OF NOTES FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD AND SPECIFICALLY THE SAME DEPOSIT NOTES WITH THE BANK AFTER SOME TIME FOR ANY SPECIFIC PERIOD. THE DISAL LOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE IS NO WHERE SEEMS JUSTIFIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF WITHDRAWAL OF SPECIFIC DENOMINATION OF NOTES AND ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT OF SPECIFIC DENOMINATION OF NOTES AND COMPA RING OF NOTES, NO WHERE SEEMS JUSTIFIABLE. HOWEVER, THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE CAN BE DISCREDITED 10 ON THE BASIS OF THE EXPENDITURE OR ANY OTHER EXPENSES WHICH NO WHERE SP EAKS. WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSIT NOWHERE CROSS THE LIMIT OF DEPOSIT. THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE POSSIBILITY OF EXCHANGE OF NOT E CANNOT BE DISCREDITED. THERE IS NO PROVISION ON RECORD TO PRESUME THAT ASSESSEE HAS EXPANDED THE WITHDRAWAL AMOUNT FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSES. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, WE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VRS. BALDEV RAJ ( 2008) 27 CCH 0915 (DEL TRIB) , DATED 29 TH DEC. 2008. SO FAR AS WITHDRAWAL OF AMOUNT OF SPECIFIC DENOMINATION OF NOTES AND DEPOSIT OF NON - SPECIFIC DENOMINATION OF NOTES, WE NOWHERE FOUND JUSTIFIABLE TO DISCREDIT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS R EGARD , WE ALSO FIND SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VRS. GANGA SINGH (2014) 41 CCH 0170 (DELHI TRIB) AND ANAND AUTORIDE LTD. VRS. JCIT (2005) 24 CCH 0742 (AHD. TRIB). 12 . CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS J UDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WE NOTICE D THAT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) IS NOWHERE JUSTIFIED, HENCE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 13 . IN THE NET RESULT, THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27 TH JULY 2021 SD/ - SD/ - ( MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 27 /07 /2021 SR.PS, DHANANJAY 11 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.