Sh. Baljit Singh, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-3(2), Ludhiana

ITA 986/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9573 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIV SWAROOP SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHAWANI KUMAR
• Section: 133(6); 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH SMC CHANDIGARH , ! BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM ./ ITA NO. 986/CHD/2018 !' # $# / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI BALJIT SINGH, S/O SHRI PRITAM SINGH, VILLAGE-SHANKAR, TEHSIL-DEHLON, LUDHIANA. VS THE ITO, WARD 3(2), LUDHIANA. ./ PAN NO: DBJPS1360G / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHAWANI KUMAR / REVENUE BY : SHRI SHIV SWAROOP SHARMA / DATE OF HEARING : 30.05.2019 !'#$%& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.07.2019 %&/ ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 11.05.2018 OF CIT(A)-1, LUDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, LUDHIANA IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARILY UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX, 1961. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER GRAVE\Y ERRED IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS. 16,00,000/- MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF CAS H DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT NOS. 196010100079338 AND 196010100079347 WITH AXIS BANK, LUDHIANA OF RS. 8,00,000/- EACH. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. AR ADDRESSING GROUND NO. 1 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS THE SAID GROUND. A DDRESSING THE ISSUE AGITATED IN GROUND NO. 2, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SIMPLE AGRICULTURIST WHO HAS WITHDRAWN SPECIFIC AMOUNTS OF RS. 10,70,000/- AND R S. 17,80,000/- FROM HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 196010100079347 AND 1960101 00079339 MAINTAINED WITH AXIS BANK ON 04.08.2008 AND AFTER A GAP OF ABO UT FOUR MONTHS ON 21.11.2008 HE HAS DEPOSITED BACK RS. 8 LACS IN THE SAID ACCOUNTS. THESE RE- DEPOSITS OF RS. 8 LACS EACH HAVE BEEN DOUBTED AND T HE EXPLANATION OFFERED HAS ITA 986/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE 2 OF 6 BEEN CONSIDERED TO BE A CONTRIVED STORY. IT WAS HI S SUBMISSION THAT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURIST IS AN ACCEPTED FAC T AND IS NOT DISPUTED. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE RE-DEPO SITS ARE EXPLAINABLE FROM THE VERY SAME ACCOUNTS AND THUS THE ADDITION MADE, IT W AS HIS PRAYER, MAY BE DELETED. 3. THE LD. SR.DR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSME NT ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE THOUGH AN AGRICULTURIST IS DEFINITELY NOT A SIMPLE AGRICULTURIST AS EVEN TO GET NOTICE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, THE AO NEEDED TO SEND AN INSPECTOR TO HIS RESIDENCE, GET INFORMATION ABOUT HIS WHEREABOUTS FR OM HIS NEIGHBOURS ETC. IT WAS SUBMITTED THE EFFORTS OF THE DEPARTMENT NECESSITATE D SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO AVOID GETTING NOTICE SERVED UPON HIM AND ONLY AF TER MUCH EFFORTS, NOTICE COULD BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE PURPOSE OF WITHDRAW AL OF THE STATED AMOUNTS FROM HIS TWO BANK ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE SECOND BANK ACCOU NT ENDING WITH 338 WAS AN UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS A LSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT DEPOSITING IDENTICAL AMOUNTS ON THE VERY SAME DATES , IN THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES BECOMES QUESTIONABLE. THE EXPLANA TION OFFERED, IT WAS SUBMITTED WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE BELIEVABLE IF THE EX ACT AMOUNT WITHDRAWN HAD BEEN RE-DEPOSITED. THE BALD STATEMENT WITH THE AMO UNTS WERE WITHDRAWN FOR A PURPORTED PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, IT WAS SU BMITTED HAD NEVER BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY AGREEMENT OR EVIDENCE. ACCORDI NGLY, RELYING UPON SMT. KAVITA CHANDRA VS CIT, PANCHKULA MARCH 7, 2017 81 TAXMANN.COM 317 (P&H) IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION MAY BE CONFIRM ED. 4. THE LD. AR IN REPLY SUBMITTED THAT HE IS NOT AWA RE OF THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT AND HE APOLOGIZES FOR THE INCONVENIENCE CAUSED DUE TO SOME MISTRUST/FEAR PRESUMABLY HARBOURED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE WOULD ADVISE THE ASSESSEE IN FUTURE TO TRUST THE TAX AUTHORITIES ALW AYS. IT WAS RE-ITERATED THAT THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS AN AGRICULTURIST, IS NOT DIS PUTED. REFERRING TO THE ORDERS ALSO, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO HINT OR SUG GESTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT F ROM THE STATED ACTIVITY AMOUNTS WHICH STOOD DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT, A DMITTEDLY WERE WITHDRAWN. THE AVAILABILITY OF THE AMOUNTS WITH THE ASSESSEE I N THE BANK ACCOUNTS IS ACCEPTED. THE OCCASION FOR CONCLUDING THAT IT WAS UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ITA 986/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE 3 OF 6 ASSESSEE, IT WAS SUBMITTED, DOES NOT ARISE AS THE A SSESSEE BEING AGRICULTURIST HAS NEVER BEEN AN INCOME TAX ASSESSEE, SO WHERE WAS THE OCCASION TO DISCLOSE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS BOTH WO ULD HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE AIR INFORMATION ETC. THE PURPOSE FOR WITHDRAWALS FR OM THE BANK ACCOUNTS HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY STATED AS A PURPORTED PURCHASE. T HE INSISTENCE OF THE REVENUE, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO PROD UCE A CANCELLED AGREEMENT, IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS AN IMPOSSIBLE REQUIREMENT AS THER E WAS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT PRESUMPTION OF A WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO SELL IS AN UNNECESSARY INSISTENCE, THERE IS NO BAR FOR AN ASSE SSEE TO ENTER INTO AN ORAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE SOME LAND. FOR THE SAKE OF A N ARGUMENT IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT IF THE ASSESSEE NAMES A PERSON, WIL L THE TAX DEPARTMENT ACCEPT THE STATEMENT. GOING BY HIS EXPERIENCE, IT WAS SUBM ITTED, THE REVENUE WOULD INSIST ON THE FACT BEING PROVED. HOW IS THE ASSESS EE EXPECTED TO PROVE IT. THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO TRUST THAT THERE WAS AN ORAL AG REEMENT WHICH DID NOT RESULT IN A SALE. THE FACT IS SUPPORTED BY THE CONDUCT OF WITHDRAWAL OF AMOUNTS FROM THE TWO ACCOUNTS AND RE-DEPOSIT PARTIALLY IN THE TWO AC COUNTS. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT AN ASSESSEE CAN WELL ARGUE THAT HE WAS CONVINC ED THAT ON THE OFFER OF A SPECIFIC AMOUNT, A PARTICULAR INVESTMENT COULD BE M ADE, HOW IS THE ASSESSEE SUPPOSED TO PROVE THESE FACTS. THE FACT IS THAT SI NCE THE INVESTMENT CONTEMPLATED DID NOT FRUCTIFY PART OF THE AMOUNTS WERE RE-DEPOSI TED BACK IN THE VERY SAME TWO ACCOUNTS. HOW HE SPENT OR RETAINED PART OF THE AMO UNTS, IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS NOT RELEVANT NOR QUESTIONED NOR IT COULD BE QUESTIONED IN A FREE COUNTRY. FORCING THE ASSESSEE TO NAME THE PERSON WITH WHOM HE HAD AN AG REEMENT OR FROM WHOM HE UNILATERALLY BELIEVED ON THE OFFER OF MONEY A PIECE OF LAND COULD BE PURCHASED IS PUTTING THE ASSESSEE AT THE MERCY OF A PERSON WHO M AY OR MAY NOT FOR HIS OWN REASONS OWN UP OR REFUSE TO OWN UP THE CORRECT FACT S BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES, THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED. IT WAS RE-ITERATED THAT THE FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN FUNDS FROM THE SPECIFIC BANK ACCOUNT AMOU NTING TO RS. 10,70,000/- AND RS. 17,80,000/- ON THE VERY SAME DATE. THE PU RPOSE FOR WITHDRAWAL DID NOT REACH THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION. THE ASSESSEE, THEREA FTER, RE-DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 8 LACS EACH IN THE TWO ACCOUNTS AND THE ARGUMEN T THAT THE EXACT AMOUNT WITHDRAWN ONLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED, IT WAS S UBMITTED, NOT ONLY GIVES STRENGTH TO THE FEARS OF THE AGRICULTURIST WHO IS S TATED TO BE NOT SO SIMPLE BY THE ITA 986/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE 4 OF 6 SR.DR BUT ALSO HIGHLIGHTS THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES GIVING LIFE TO THE FEARS THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TAX LAWS I S DRACONIAN. 4.1 ADDRESSING THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) AND THE AR GUMENTS OF THE SR.DR, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FACT THAT LESSER AMOUNT INSTEAD OF THE FULL AMOUNT IS BEING RE- DEPOSITED, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY ITSELF CANNOT LEAD T O THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CLAIM IS FALSE. IN CASE THE LAW REQUIRED THE AO TO ASK WHER E HE HAD SPENT THE MONEY, HE COULD WELL HAVE ASKED. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO SUCH R EQUIREMENT. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES TO SHOW TH AT THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED ELSEWHERE. FORCING THE ASSESSEE TO DO THE IMPOSSIB LE I.E. PRODUCE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO SELL WHEN THERE WAS NO SUCH AGREEMENT, IT WAS SUBMITTED IS UNFAIR IMPLEMENTATION OF LAW. IT WAS ALSO HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SIMPLE AGRICULTURIST. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF FACT UNDER CHALLENG E BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR READY REFERE NCE : 9. ADVERTING NOW TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IT HAS BEE N NOTED WITH CONCERN THAT THE APPELLANT RESISTED THE SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, N ECESSITATING SERVICE BY AFFIXTURE. EVEN WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE AFORESAI D NOTICE OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME, THE APPELLANT DID NOT COME CLEAN ON THE BANK ACCOUNTS M AINTAINED BY HIM. WHEN THE AO CALLED FOR INFORMATION FROM THE BANK UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE ACCOUNT WHERE RS.26 LAKHS CASH WAS DEPOSITED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT CAME TO LIGHT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ANOTHER SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT IN THE S AME BRANCH IN WHICH THERE WERE DEPOSITS OF RS.20 LAKHS CASH IN AGGREGATE DURING THE YEAR. WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT OF TAXABLE INCOME, THE AO ACC EPTED THE OPENING CASH BALANCES IN BOTH THE ACCOUNTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. BESIDES, THE AO ALSO ACCEPTED THE AVERMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT SITS OF CASH WERE SOURCED OUT OF WIT HDRAWALS OF CASH FROM THE SAME ACCOUNT WHEREVER THE DEPOSITS WERE WITHIN THE ACCEPTABLE TI ME-FRAME OF FEW DAYS. HOWEVER, THE DEPOSIT OF RS.8 LAKHS ON 21/11/2008 IN SB A/C NO. 196010100 079347 STATED TO HAVE BEEN SOURCED FROM CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 10,70,000/- ON 04/08/2008 I. E. AFTER A GAP OF NEARLY 4 MONTHS WAS CONSIDERED TO BE IMPROBABLE BY THE AO. SIMILARLY, THE DEPOSIT OF RS.8 LAKHS ON 21/11/20UB IN SB A/C NO. 196010100079338 STATED TO HAVE BEEN SOURCED FROM CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 17,80,000/- ON 04/08/2008 WAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO ON TH E GROUND OF CONSIDERABLE TIME LAG. THE AFORESAID APPREHENSION OF THE AO CANNOT BE CONSIDER ED TO BE MISPLACED OR ARBITRARY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT, BESIDES STATING A STOR Y OF WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FOR PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY THROUGH AN 'AGREEMENT TO SALE', WHICH PROPERTY PURPORTEDLY COULD NOT ULTIMATELY BE PURCHASED, HAS NEITHER PROVIDED ANY D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IF THERE WAS A N 'AGREEMENT FOR SALE/PURCHASE', THERE WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE BEEN A CANCELLATION OF SUCH AGREEME NT, IF THE STIPULATIONS REGARDING THE TIMING OF CONVEYANCE THROUGH REGISTERED SALE DEED WAS NOT MET . THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING FORTH ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT WITHDRAWAL OF CASH WAS MEANT FOR PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AS PER AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND THAT IT HAD TO BE CANCELLED FOR SOME REASON OR THE OTHER. BESIDES, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT REDEPOSITED THE EXAC T AMOUNT OF WITHDRAWAL WHICH WOULD HAVE LENT CREDENCE TO BE PROPOSITION THAT ONLY THE WITHD RAWN AMOUNT WAS RE-DEPOSITED. THE SAID ITA 986/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE 5 OF 6 IMPUGNED DEPOSITS ARE ALSO AFTER A CONSIDERABLE TIM E GAP, WHICH REMAINS ENTIRELY UNEXPLAINED. THE APPELLANT'SWHICH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE APPELL ANT HAS NOT EVEN IDENTIFIED OR NAMED THE PROPERTY INTENDED TO BE PURCHASED OR THE NAME OF TH E INTENDING SELLER. NOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH RESULTED IN CANCELLATION OF THE PURPORTED AGR EEMENT TO SALE/PURCHASE HAS BEEN STATED BY THE APPELLANT EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANT'S DEFENCE REMAINS IN T HE REALM OF A CONTRIVED STORY WHICH CANNOT BE GIVEN ANY SERIOUS CREDENCE. THE APPELLANT CANNOT, T HEREFORE, BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING REGARDING THE AFORESAID TWO DEPOSITS OF RS.8 LAKHS EACH ON 21/11/2008 IN THE TWO ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED WITH AXIS BANK. THE EXPLANATION OF THE A PPELLANT CLEARLY FALLS SHORT ON THE PLAUSIBILITY INDEX IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID TWO DEPOSITS. THE ACTION OF THE AO VIS-A-VIS THE AFORESAID TWO DEPOSITS OF RS.8 LAKHS EACH AGGREGATI NG TO RS.16 LAKHS CANNOT, THUS, BE FAULTED. SIMILARLY, THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST EARNED BY THE APP ELLANT ON THE DEPOSIT SO MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE TAXED. THE GROUND O F APPEAL PERTAINING TO THE ADDITION OF INTEREST HAS NEITHER BEEN PRESSED NOR HAS THE APPELLANT ANY GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON TO CONTEST THE ADDITION ON THAT COUNT. IN THE RESULT THE GROUNDS O F APPEAL AS AT SI NOS.1,3 &4 ARE DISMISSED AS BEREFT OF ANY MERIT. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5.1 ON A CONSIDERATION THEREOF, I FIND THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RE-DEPOSITING IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNTS HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY WELL ADDRESSED. NO EVIDENCE REBUTTING THE CLAIM IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND MYSELF IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS ADV ANCED BY THE LD. AR THAT HOW WOULD NAMING A PROPERTY IDENTIFIED FOR A PURPORTED PURCHASE OR A PERSON WITH WHOM THERE WAS AN ORAL AGREEMENT, MAKE THE CLAIM MO RE PLAUSIBLE. THE LAW PERMITS ORAL AGREEMENTS AND THE TAX AUTHORITIES INS ISTENCE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO PRODUCE A WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO SELL ADMITTEDLY IS A RBITRARY PERVERSE AND UNREASONABLE. THE FACT THAT THE CONTEMPLATED TRANSA CTION DID NOT MATERIALIZE IS SELF EVIDENT. HAD THERE BEEN ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE AMOUNTS HAD BEEN UTILIZED ELSEWHERE, THEN THE POSITION WOULD HAVE VARIED AS W AS THE POSITION IN THE CASE OF SMT. KAVITA CHANDRA VS CIT CITED SUPRA, THE DECISION CITED BY THE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, THE FACTS RELATABLE THERETO SHALL BE REFER RED TO SUBSEQUENTLY. REVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THER E IS NO SUCH INSTANCE, REFERENCE, ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE FUNDS WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE OR FOR REASONS MENTIONED COULD NOT HAVE BE EN AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO BRING SOME EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM, SUSPICION OR ALLEGATION ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THERE IS NO LAW THAT FUNDS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANKS CANNOT BE HELD/RETAINED IN CASH BY THE PARTIE S. THERE CAN ALSO BE NO BLANKET PERIOD WHICH CAN BE JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED T O BE A REASONABLE TIME. THE FACT THAT THERE IS A GAP OF ABOUT FOUR MONTHS BY ITSELF IN THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES DOES NOT LEAD TO ANY CONCLUSION WHICH DETRACTS FROM THE MERITS OF THE CLAIMS MADE. THE REASONABLENESS OF THE EXPLANATION HAS TO BE DEC IDED CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND ITA 986/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE 6 OF 6 THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. ON A PERU SAL OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. KAVITA CHANDRA VS CIT, PANCHKULA (CITED SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE, IT IS SEE N THAT THE SAID DECISION PREVAILS IN PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHE REIN IT WAS A CONSISTENT FINDING OF FACT AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO THE HON'BLE HIGH COU RT THAT THE WITHDRAWALS MADE WERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THUS, WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR REDEPOSIT BACK IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, CLAIM OF RE-DEPOSIT AFTER A GAP OF 2-3 MONTHS WAS HELD TO BE NOT POSSIBLE. IN THE FACTS O F THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NO SUCH ALLEGATION. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE BY THE REVENUE TO SUPPORT THE POSSIBLY UNARTICULATED SUSPICION THA T THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN UTILISED ELSEWHERE. ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ADDITION SUSTAINED IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03 JULY,2019 . SD/- ( ) (DIVA SINGH) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER FIT FOR PUBLICATION ( ) (DIVA SINGH) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER