N. Roja Vs ACIT (ITAT Cuttack)
We find that the AO made addition on account of unexplained investment in gold and jewellery of 2417.290 grams as found and seized during the course of search in the residential premises and the Locker No.75/4 & 145/2 of the assessee at Indian Overseas Bank, Rayagada. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO considered 1500 grams of gold jewllery and bullion to be acquired out of explained sources and made addition of remaining 917.29 grams valuing at Rs.25,26,438/- treating the same as acquired out of the unaccounted source of income and added the same to the total income of the assessee. In first appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee has accepted that the source of 1650 grams gold and jewellery has been explained and confirmed the remaining gold and jewllery found and seized during the course of search. On perusal of the assessment order, it is found that the AO himself in first para at page No.5 of the assessment order has mentioned that the assessee has explained the sources with regard to acquisition of gold jewellery weighing around 682 grams. The ld. AR before vehemently submitted that even though the A.O. has accepted the fact that 682.000 grams of gold jewelry over and above that 1550.000 grams were explained but while completing the Assessment has allowed only 1500.000 grams and confirmed the addition of 917.29 grams, therefore, impugned addition made by him, needs to be deleted. Ld. AR also drew our attention to the statement of details of gold purchased by the assessee at page 36 of the paper book along with bills. On careful perusal of the same, we find that 282.58 grams gold and jewllery were in the acquisition of the assessee. It was also submitted by the ld. AR that the assessee and her husband had purchased 200.00 grams each totaling to 400 grams of gold and jewellery. From the above submissions of the assessee as well as the observations made by the AO, we are of the opinion that the AO has rightly noted that the sources of 682 grams gold and jewellery have been explained. Thus, out of 767.29 grams gold ornaments and jewellery as confirmed by the CIT(A), 682 grams have to be treated as explained. However, with regard to remaining 85.29 grams, we do not see any corroborative evidence has been filed by the assessee.
in the case of Shri Jerambhai B. Khokharia in ITA No.2613/Ahd/2009, the Ahmedabad Tribunal vide order dated 05.11.2015, has held that it is ample clear that gold jewellery found to the extent of limit mentioned in the circular is treated as explained and this can be clearly applied on the assessee’s case, wherein no specific deduction of gold jewellery possessed by family members and grand children was given by the Assessing Officer from the total gold jewellery found at the time of search and seizure operation and differential gold jewellery of 1924.22 gr. is the gold jewellery possessed by the female members and minor children of the assessee’s joint family and this quantity of 1924.22 gr. is well within the total limit of jewellery at 2100 grms. as per the CBDT instruction no.1916 dated 11.05.1994.
As per the above quoted judicial pronouncements and the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee deserves to get benefit of the aforesaid CBDT Instruction No.1916, dated 11.05.1994, according to which 1650 grams is not to be treated as undisclosed investment.
Further the CIT(A) held that the source of 100 gms. of gold jewellery belonging to the sister-in-law of the assessee, who resides at Rayagada is also treated as explained on the strength of her affidavit and for the reasons that she does not have locker at a place where she resides. Accordingly, the CIT(A) granted relief 1650 grams of gold and jewellery to the assessee. Further, we noted that the AO has also clearly mentioned in the assessment order that 682 grams of gold and jewellery has been explained by the assessee before him. Once the revenue authorities accept the source explained by the assessee, in such case there is no further room for treating the same as undisclosed investment of the assessee. Now, the remaining 85.29 grams of gold and jewellery has not been explained by the assessee. Therefore, we confirm 85.29 grams of gold and jewellery out of 767.29 grams upheld by the CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition on the exact value of 682 grams gold and jewellery. Ground Nos.3 & 4 are partly allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CUTTACK
These six appeals have been filed by the assessee, out of which five appeals for the assessment years 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 have been filed against the order of CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, all dated 02.07.2018 arising out of the assessment order passed by the AO u/s.153A/143(3) of the Act, dated 29.12.2017 and one appeal for the assessment year 2016-2017 has been filed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, dated 02.07.2018 arising out of assessment order passed by the AO u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 29.12.2017.
2. Since the assessee in all the appeals is same and the facts in all the appeals are same, therefore, for the sake of brevity and convenience, all the appeals have been heard analogously and disposed off by this consolidated order. The issues involved in five appeals i.e. the appeals filed for the assessment years 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 being similar, are taken into consideration first, therefore, the identical grounds taken in appeal for A.Y.2010-2011 and the facts mentioned therein are taken for deciding all the appeals. The ground taken in IT(SS)A No.101/CTK/2018 are as under :-
1. For that, the impugned order of Assessment passed U/S.153A read with section 143(3) of the Act is without jurisdiction and without the authority of law, as such, the same being not sustainable in the eye of law, is liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.
2. For that, when documents seized during the course of search operation were duly explained by the Assessee and accepted by the learned A.O, hence he should not have disturbed the Assessment Under Section,143(l)(a) of the Act. The impugned additions made in the order of Assessment for Assessment year 2010-11 being not sustainable in the eye of law is liable to be deleted in the interest of justice.
3. For that, In course of search, no such incriminating materials could be unearthed by the Search Team, the documents seized by the Search Wing were explained by the Assessee during the course post search inquiry as well as during the course of Assessment also. And when there were no such incriminating material found during the course of search and the seized documents, were well explained by the Assessee which were also accepted by the Search Team as well as by the A.O., then he should have accepted the return filed by the Assessee and should have also accepted the Assessment passed U/s.l43(l)(a) of the Act and should not have disturbed the completed Assessment. Hence the impugned additions made in the order of Assessment for Assessment year 2010-11 being not sustainable in the eye of law is liable to be deleted in the interest of justice.
4. For that, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) during the course of appeal proceeding, not accepted the opening balance of Rs.6,62,000 and confirmed the additions made by learned Assessing Officer without considering the return submissions and facts of the case, as the assessee is filing regular returns since 20 years and the assessee has also submitted earlier 2 years cash flows statement along with return of income to substantiate the opening balance which were not at all considered.
5. For these and other reasons to be adduced at the time of hearing that the assessee prays to accept the appeal and delete the entire addition in interest of natural justice and fair play.
3. Further the ld. AR of the assessee has filed an application dated 01.08.2019 for acceptance of additional grounds of appeal already taken in the grounds of appeal filed and submitted that due to lack of knowledge the assessee could not raise the legal ground before the CIT(A), therefore, the same has been raised before the Tribunal for consideration.
4. AR before us argued both on legal ground as well as on merits, therefore, looking to the facts of the case, the legal ground raised by the assessee is taken on record and appeal is heard on legal grounds as well as on merits.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from house property, remuneration from Hotel Sai International Pvt. Ltd. and household business and filed her original return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act, 1961 on 31.03.2011 showing total income at Rs.1,99,580/-. A search and seizure operation u/s.132 of the Act, 1961 was conducted in the residential premises of the assessee on 12.02.2016 at New Colony, Sai Mandir Road, Rayagada.
Post-search was also conducted on 10.08.2016 in case of the assessee along with other group cases which was intimated to the assessee. Thereafter the AO issued notice u/s.153A of the Act on 27.01.2017, in response to which the assessee filed her return of income on 17.03.2017 declaring the income as already declared in the original return of income. Thereafter the case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices were issued to the assessee, in response to which the AR of the assessee was appeared on 25.07.2017 and submitted the copy of return of income, bank statements, cash flow statements and other information as per the questionnaire raised by the Assessing Officer(hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’). Subsequent notices were also issued to the assessee which were served on the assessee. During the course of search and seizure proceedings at the residential premises of the assessee, it was unearthed that the assessee was having two bank accounts i.e. one in Andhra Bank and other in State Bank of India. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that there was a total credit in both the bank accounts amounting to Rs.9,06,811/-. The assessee was asked to explain as to why the bank deposits amounting to Rs.6,07,227/- (i.e. the difference between total credits made in different bank accounts excluding total income shown in the return of income), will not be considered as his undisclosed income. In response to the above query, the AR of the assessee submitted reply. Further the assessee submitted cash flow statement and its related ledger accounts to substantiate the sources of credits. On verification of the cash-flow statement for the year under consideration the AO found that the assessee has shown Rs.8,54,567/- as opening cash-in-hand and receipts were shown including interest on saving bank accounts and had utilized cash for payments. The assessee was asked to substantiate the opening cash but the assessee failed to substantiate to furnish any evidence for the opening cash balance. It was also noticed that even in the income tax return filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2009-2010, the same was also not reflected in the specified column provided in the return of income, therefore, for want of any evidence, the AO added Rs.6,62,000/- to the total income of the assessee as unexplained opening cash in-hand considering the income declared by the assessee in the previous assessment year.
6. The AO further noticed that the assessee had purchased a piece of land at New Colony Road, Rayagada for a total consideration of Rs.2,90,000/-. On verification of the cash-flow statement, the stamp duty of Rs.20,572/-, which was paid at the time of registration of a piece of land, was not reflected but in the sale deed, it was clearly mentioned that the stamp duty of Rs.20,572/- has been paid. Therefore, the AO added the same into the total income of the assessee as unexplained investment on stamp duty for registration of land and completed the assessment accordingly.
7. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee also filed detailed submissions and after considering the submissions the CIT(A) held as under :-
Ground Nos.2, 3 & 4:-
4.1 In these grounds, the appellant has challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of the excess deposits in bank account of Rs.6,62,000/-. During the course of search and seizure operation at the residential premises of the appellant bank accounts in Andhra Bank and State Bank of India, were unearthed. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the total credits in these two bank account are of Rs.9,06,811/-. He excluded the income declared by the appellant in the return of income and asked the appellant to explain the remaining credits. The explanation of the appellant was that he had cash-in-hand of Rs.8,54,567/- and it was sufficient to explain the remaining credits. However, according to the Assessing Officer, income declared in the previous assessment order was not sufficient and the appellant did not furnish evidence in respect of the entries in the cash flow statement to merit favourable decision from him.
4.2 During the appeal proceedings, the appellant has filed income tax returns for A.Y.2008-09 and 2009-10, in which total income of Rs. 1,38,920/- and of Rs. 1,74,560/- have been disclosed. The appellant has also filed cash flow statement for financial year ending 31.03.2008 showing opening balance, of cash-in-hand Rs.3,01,950/- and closing balance of Rs.4,68,100/-. Similarly, appellant has filed cash flow statement for financial year ending 31.03.2009, showing opening balance of cash-in-hand of Rs.4,68,000/- and closing balance of Rs.8,54,567/-. According to the appellant, the closing balance of Rs.8,54,567/- was utilised for credits in the two bank accounts.
4.3 I have carefully considered the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. With regard to the non-cash credits, they have to appear from cheque deposits, draft deposits, NEFT or RTGS. The appellant has not made any attempt to explain the non cash credits. With regard to cash deposits in the two bank accounts, they have to come out of accumulated cash balance. The income disclosed in the previous two assessment years is very small to make cash deposits of worthwhile amounts. Further, the appellant does not maintain the books of account and the cash flow statements were prepared to justify availability of cash with the appellant. The common feature of the two cash flow statements is that there are very low drawings of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.50,000/-respectively, which is just about Rs.4,000/- per month. The appellant belongs to an affluent family and such small drawing for house hold expenditure and other ceremonial / social functions is extremely inadequate. There is no doubt that the drawings have been deliberately shown small to justify accumulation of cash balance. Therefore, the cash flow statements cannot be relied upon. Considering these aspects, I am of the considered view that the deposits could not from explained non-cash sources or from the accumulated opening cash balance, but they are from the undisclosed income of the appellant. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.6,62,000/-is confirmed. The grounds of appeal are dismissed.
5. Ground No. 5:-
In this ground, the appellant has contested the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.20,572/- on account unexplained investment on stamp duty and registration of land. In the previous grounds, I have confirmed the addition of Rs.6,62,000/- as undisclosed income of the appellant. The investment of Rs.20,572/- can be treated as application of undisclosed income. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.20,572/- is ordered to be deleted. The ground of appeal is allowed.
8. Feeling aggrieved from the above order of CIT(A), the assessee appealed before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
9. AR before us, reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A) and filed paper book containing pages 1 to 53. Ld. AR further submitted that during the course of search and seizure operation there was no any incriminating material found during the course of search. The AO has made addition not on the basis of any incriminating material but the addition has been made by the AO on the basis of bank accounts of the assessee maintained in the Andhra Bank and State Bank of India, which were disclosed in the return of income at appropriate column, therefore, it cannot be said that these accounts were to be in the nature of any incriminating material. It was also submitted by the ld.AR of the assessee that in the appropriate column the return of income did not accept the other name of bank, otherwise the assessee would have disclosed the other bank account maintained in State Bank of India. Ld. AR strongly relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla, [2016] 380ITR 573 (Delhi) and submitted that when there is no any incriminating material, the assessment already completed cannot be interfered with. Further ld. AR to support his contentions, has also relied on the following decisions :-
i) ACIT Vs. Shri Rasik Gopaldas Patel IT(SS)A Nos.617/Ahd/2011 & CO No.8/Ahd/2012, order dated 04.09.2015; and
ii) Sukanta Chandra Mallick, IT(SS)A Nos.86-91/CTK/2018 & Dr. Sambeet Kumar Mallick, IT(SS)A Nos.92-96/CTK/2018, order dated 08.07.2019
10. On the other hand, ld. DR relied on the orders of authorities below and submitted that the statements recorded during the course of search proceedings by the search party in the case of assessee at question No.4, 12,13,14,18,19 & 20, which read as under :-
Q.4. Please state specific details of the bank accounts and locker maintained m your name and your business concern.
Ans The following are the bank accounts maintained in the name of myself:-
(a) SBI Rayagada, A/C No.-11038950797 Vs—
(b) Andhra Bank, A/C No.- 047110027000055
(c) Two locker in Indian Overseas Bank maintained jointly with my husband N. Trinath Rao.
Q.12 I now present before you page no. 18 to 27 of seized material NTR-01 which is a bunch of loose sheet. Please explain the contents.
Ans It is an agreement for purchase of immovable property between myself and Smt. Huss Nara Bibi. I have paid an advance of Rs. 5 Lakh.
Q.13 Please furnish the source for payment of the above advance.
Ans This is from my own income i,e rental income, share income-from firm and petty business income and from money given by my husband .
Q14 What are the source for the money given by your husband?
Ans His rental income, professional income and receipt from the sale of agricultural land.
Q.18 Have you reflected the above transaction and source for the above purchase in your return of income or books of account.
Ans No, I don’t maintain any regular books of accounts and I have filled my income tax .returns.
Q.19 Did you file your balance sheet in your income tax return?
Ans No, I have not filled my balance sheet as my income was computed on estimated basis
Q.20 If you have not filled your balance sheet then where is the above transactions reflected?
Ans The purchase is from my income and my income is from estimated basis only and from rental income.
Ld. DR further submitted that the additions have been made on the basis of documents found during the course of search and seizure operation which are evident from the above submissions recorded in the question-answers as noted above, it is clear that the assessee had two bank accounts which has been noted by the authorities below. The assessee could not substantiate the cash deposited into the bank account, therefore, the AO has rightly added unexplained opening cash-in-hand to the total income of the assessee, which could not be substantiated. He also pointed out that in the return of income the assessee had not disclosed cash in hand in the previous assessment year as well as in the current assessment year and it was also pointed out that the interest income has not been shown in the return of income. In support of his contentions, ld. DR relied on the following decisions :-
i) CIT Vs. ST. Francis Clay Decor Tiles [2016] 70 com 234 (Kerala);
20. On a plain reading of Section 153A, it is clear that once search is initiated under Section 132 or a requisition is made under Section 132A after the 31st day of May 2003, the Assessing Officer is empowered to issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish return of income in respect of each assessment year following within six assessment years referred to in clause (b). It further treats the returns so filed as if such return were a return required to be furnished under Section 139. So that on a reading of Section 153A(1) it is categoric and clear that once a notice is issued and the Assessing Officer has required the assessee to furnish return for a period of six assessment years as contemplated under clause (b) then the assessee has to furnish all details with respect to each assessment year since the same is treated as a return filed under section 139. It is true that as per the first proviso, the Assessing Officer is bound to assess or reassess the total income with respect to each assessment year following the six assessment years specified in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Section 153A. However, even if no documents are unearthed or any statement made by the assessee during the course of search under section 132 and no materials are received for the afore-specified period of six years, the assessee is bound to file a return, is the scheme of the provision. Even though the second proviso to Section 153A speaks of abatement of assessment or reassessment pending on the date of the initiation of search within the period of six assessment years specified under the provision that will also not absolve the assessee from his liability to submit returns as provided under Section 153A(1)(a). This being the scheme of the provisions of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal ought to have considered the issue with specific reference to the facts involved in the case and as provided under Section 153A.
21. However, we find that the Tribunal without appreciating the facts and circumstances has proceeded purely on the basis that the cases at hand were covered under the Special Bench decision in All Cargo Logistics Ltd. (supra). In our view the course adopted by the Tribunal was not the proper one to decide the question with regard to the sustainability of the order passed by the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not adopted the right method to decide the issue with regard to the question framed in these appeals and therefore, it is only necessary to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
ii) CIT Vs. Dr. P.Sasikumar [2016] 73 com 173 (Kerala) :
I. Section 153A, read with sections 132 and 132A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -Search and seizure – Assessment in case of (Submission of returns for six years) -Assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09 – Whether any material unearthed during search operations or any statement made during course of search by assessee is a valuable piece of evidence in order to invoke section 153A – Held, yes – Whether once search is initiated under section 132 or a requisition is made under section 132A, Assessing Officer is empowered to issue notice to person searched requiring him to furnish return of income in respect of each of following six assessment years as referred to in clause (b) of section 153A(1) – Held, yes -Whether once aforesaid notice is issued, assessee has to furnish all details with respect to each assessment year since same is treated as a return filed under section 139 – Held, yes – Whether even if no documents are unearthed, nor any statement was made by assessee during course of search under section 132 or any material is received for aforespecified period of six years, assessee is bound to file a return – Held, yes – Whether abatement of assessment or reassessment pending on date of initiation of search within period of six assessment years specified under section 153A will also not absolve assessee from his liability to submit returns as provided under section 153A(1)(a) – Held, yes [Paras 5 & 6] [In favour of revenue]
iii) Rajat Tradecom India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2009] 120 ITD 48 (Indore):
9. Section 153A would be applicable where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of accounts or other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A of the Act after 31st May, 2003. Therefore, before invoking the provisions of section 153A of the Act it would be necessary to comply with the provisions contained under section 132(1) of the Act. Salient feature of section 132(1) is that where the Director General or Director or the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, in consequence of information in his possession has reason to believe that any person failed to produce books of accounts or other documents in response to summons or that any person to whom summons have been issued has not or might not or would not produce any books of accounts or documents or that any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article in his possession, which has not been or would not be disclosed for the purpose of this Act (hereinafter referred to as “undisclosed income’ or ‘property’ then the Director General, Director or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, as the case may be, may authorize any Joint Director, Assistant Director, Assistant Commissioner of Dy. Commissioner of Income tax, called the authorized Officer, to enter and search any building, place, vessel, vehicle or air-craft, etc. where he has reason to suspect that such books of accounts, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are kept, break open the lock of any door, etc., search any person who is about to go from the above premises, require any person to account for the books of accounts or documents, seize any such books of accounts or documents, money, bullion, jewellery, etc. or things found as a result of such search and may place mark of identification on any books of accounts or other documents or take copy thereof and to prepare inventory of the same. The purpose of section 132 for issue of warrant of authorization is to unearth, detect and to take possession of the unaccounted/ undisclosed income or property. The mere issue of warrant of authorization without there being search of the premises mentioned in the warrant of authorization would be meaningless and would not serve the purpose of section 132 of the Act. It may be illustrated by taking an example that if warrant of authorization under section 132 is issued in the name of “A” after 31.5.2003 but his premises is not searched for the purpose of executing the warrant of authorization and the warrant of authorization is kept unexecuted, the question arises whether the Assessing Officer still should proceed under section 153A of the Act for the purpose of framing the assessment or reassessment of the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment years relevant to the previous year in which such search is initiated or requisition is made without executing the search warrant. The answer would be xNo’ because it would be a futile exercise. It may be added here that jurisdiction can be assumed by the Assessing Officer to initiate assessment proceedings to issue notices once search is initiated under section 132/requisition made under section 132A. He gets actual jurisdiction only on issue of notice, which could be issued under section 153A (unlike section 158BC(a) in block assessment) with no necessity for inference of escapement of income or underassessment as under section 147. Should it mean that a mere search will enable reassessment proceedings by-passing or ignoring the requirements of section 147. The only part of procedure dispensed with under section 153A of n~ Act on comparison with section 147 is that there is no reason for recording reasons and for approval by higher authorities before issue of notice of reassessment. Further, there cannot be automatic jurisdiction for 6 back years even for those entities which may not be in existence for ail the six years indicating that the provision is expected to be reasonably exercised. It should therefore follow that there should be prima fade inference of liability for invoking jurisdiction under section 153A of the IT Act. We may add that in section 153A(b) it is specifically provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six years immediately preceding the assessment years relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made. It would , therefore, clarify that not only the warrant of authorization is to be issued in the name of the assessee but search shall have to be necessarily conducted or in case of requisition under section 132A, the requisition is to be made actually. Hon’ble Allahabad High court in the case of Chandra Prakash Agrawal v. CTT; 287 ITR 172 considering the definition of requisition under section 132A of the Act as is referred to in section 158BA of the Act observed that the word “requisition” means taking of actual possession. The requisition is complete only when the seized books of accounts and other documents which have been requisitioned have been delivered to the requisitioning authority. The provisions of section XIV-B of the Act would come into play only when the books of accounts or other documents or assets are actually received by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the requisition made under section 132A. It was held –
Held, that no search under section 132 had been conducted by the Income-tax Department. The search, if any, was conducted on June 7/8 of 2001 by the Central Excise Department. The Income-tax Department had sent a requisition on March 27, 2002 under section 132A of the Act requisitioning the books of accounts and other documents seized by the Central Excise Department The record of the proceeding dated April 18, 2002 showed that the requisition was not fulfily executed as all the books of account and other documents had not been delivered to the requisitioning authority. The proceedings initiated under section 148 were valid. However in the proceedings for reassessment under section 148 of the Act, materia/ or evidence relatable to the documents, for which the requisition had been sent under section 132A could not be taken into consideration. “
10. Considering the above provisions as noted above in the light of the provisions of section 153A of the Act, it would be clear that once the warrant of authorization or requisition is issued and search is conducted, Panchnama is drawn, the completed assessments for ail the relevant years would get reopened irrespective of whether any incriminating material is found or not in relation to a particular assessment year. However the warrant of authorization shall have to be executed by the authorized Officer in order to justify invoking of the jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer under section 153A of the Act.
Finally, the ld. DR submitted that the case laws relied on by the ld. AR of the assessee are not applicable in the present case.
11. After hearing both the sides and perusing the entire material available on record and the orders of authorities below, we observe that in the assessment order the AO has mentioned that there was two bank account unearthed during the course of search and seizure operation which are supported by the statements recorded during the course of search and seizure procedings that there was two bank accounts have been maintained in the name of the assessee in Andhra Bank and State Bank of India. In the impugned assessment year, the assessee has deposited cash in both the bank accounts and has utilized for certain payments, which are evident from the cash-flow statements filed by the assessee along with date-wise cash book. In the paper book at page No.18, the assessee has shown summary of cash-flow statement for the year ending 31.03.2010 which as under :-
NARAYANACHETTY ROJA, RAYAGADA
CASHFLOW STATEMENT AS ON31-03-2010
