Narsimha Reddy Sama, Hyderabad V. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

ITA 519/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0624 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-06-2021
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Search and seizure; Salary income; Revised return
• Section: 132; 72; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT A NO. 519 /H/20 18 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 0 1 5 - 1 6 NARASIMHA REDDY SAMA, HYDERABAD. PAN A OVPS 1566A VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3) , HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI K.A. SAI PRASAD REVENUE BY: S HRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR DATE OF HEARING: 17 /0 6 /2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15 /0 7 /2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST CIT(A) - 12 , HYDERABAD S ORDER DATED 31 / 0 1 /20 18 FOR AY 20 1 5 - 1 6 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 14 3(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 17,20,000 BEING THE CASH FOUND ON THE DATE OF SEARCH IGNORING THE CLAIM THAT THE I TA NO. 519 /HYD /20 18 NA RASIMHA REDDY SAMA, HYD. : - 2 - : SAID CASH BELONGS TO SRI SRI GRUHANIRMAN INDIA PVT. LIMITED. 2. THE LEARNED FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 17,20,000 ESPECIALLY WHEN CASH AVAILABILITY IN THE CASE OF SRI SRI GRUHANIRMAN INDIA PVT. LIMITED WAS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT, AND ACCEPTED IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS OF SRI SRI GRUHA NIRMAN IN DIA PVT LTD. 3. THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000 BEING THE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IGNORING THE CLAIMS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUFFICIENT SOURCES TO MAKE THE SAID PAYMENT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BRIEFLY STATED, ARE THAT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S.132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED IN T HE GROUP CASES OF SRI SRI GRUHANIRMAN INDIA PVT. LTD & GROUPS ON 24 - 12 - 2014. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2015 - 16 ON 31 - 10 - 2015 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.18,38,610/COMPRISING OF R S .12, 00 ,000/_ UNDER THE H EAD 'INCOME FROM SALARY, RS.6,74,20 5 / - UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY', RS.91,754/ - AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ANOTHER REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31.03.2016 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.68,77,220/ - COMPRISING OF RS .12, 00,000 / - UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM SALARY', R S .6,74,205/ - UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE I TA NO. 519 /HYD /20 18 NA RASIMHA REDDY SAMA, HYD. : - 3 - : PROPERTY', RS.51,30,366/ - UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS' AND RS.32,648/ - AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SINCE THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED AFTER THE DU E DATE, THE REVISED RETURN WAS TREATED AS INVALID. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR COMPULSORY SCRUTINY AS PER THE C BDT'S I NSTRUCTIONS NO.08/2015, DATED 31 - 08 - 2015. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE A O U/S.143(3) OF THE IT ACT, MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: 1. UNDISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.11,28,676/ - 2. UNACCOUNTED CASH OF RS.17,20,000/ - 3. UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS INCOME OF RS.51,30,366/ - 4. UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS.4, 00,000 / - 3. WHEN THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT( A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BEFORE THE ITAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL, OUT OF WHICH GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 17,20,000/ - MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS CAS H FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. GROUND NO. 3 IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/ - BEING THE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHICH THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED A S NOT PRESSED. GROUND NO. 4 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE, NEED NO ADJUDICATION. I TA NO. 519 /HYD /20 18 NA RASIMHA REDDY SAMA, HYD. : - 4 - : 5. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT IS REQUIRED FOR OUR ADJUDICATION AS RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 1 &2 IS THE ADDITION OF RS. 17,20,000/ - BEING THE CASH FOUND ON THE DATE OF SEARCH IGNORING TH E CLAIM THAT THE SAID CASH BELONGS TO SRI SRI GRUHANIRMAN INDIA PVT. LTD. 5.1 THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE THAT D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION CONDUCTED IN T HE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, CASH AMOUNTIN G TO RS.17 , 20 , 000 / - WAS FOUND OUT OF WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RS.17 , 00 , 000 / - WAS SEIZED. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT BELONGS TO HIS WIFE AND WAS RECEIVED THE SAME FROM HER MOTHER. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE SOURCES OF THE ABOVE CASH WITH S U PP ORTIN G EVIDENCE AND TO CONFIRM WHETHER THE SAME IS ACCOUN TED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SINCE T HE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN ITS SOURCE , THE AO TREATED THE THE CASH AMOUNT OF RS.17,20, 000/ - IS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND BROUGHT TO TAX . 6. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED AS UNDER: 5.2 THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCES IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A STATEMENT ON OATH WAS RECORDED ON 03/12/2015 BY THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3) AND IN RESPONS E TO Q.NO. 9 THE APPELLANT CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 17,00,000/ - FOUND SEIZED AT HIS RESIDENCE BELONGS TO HIS SON OUT OF I TA NO. 519 /HYD /20 18 NA RASIMHA REDDY SAMA, HYD. : - 5 - : THE RECEIPTS OF SNR NIRMAN INDIA PVT. LTD. COPT OF THE SWORN STATEMENT IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK AND RELEVANT EXTRACT I S AS UNDER: 5.3 Q. NO.9. DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS ON 24 - 12 - 2014, AN AMOUNT OF RS.17 LAKHS WAS FOUND AND SEIZED IN YOUR RESIDENTIAL PREMISES. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE SAME. ANS: I STATED IN THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT THAT IT BELONGS TO MY WIFE WHICH WAS RECEI VED FROM HER MOTHER. BUT, ACTUALLY THIS AMOUNT WAS GIVEN BY MY SON OUT OF THE RECEIPTS OF SNR NIRMAN INDIA P LTD. IN WHICH CASH BALANCE IS THERE. THE DETAILS OF THE CASH BALANCE IN THE COMPANY OF SNR NIRMAN INDIA P LTD. WILL BE FURNISHED WITHIN 2 DAYS. 5 .4 IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED IN THE CASE OF SNR NIRMAH INDIA PVT. LTD A SUM OF RS.15.31.000 WAS ADDED FOR THE ASST.YEAR.2015 - 16 BEING THE CASH FOUND AND SEIZED AT THE B USINESS PREMISES OF THE SAID COMPANY. THE APPELLANT SON SR I . SUNIL KUMAR REDDY IS THE MANA GING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY AND ON THE DATE OF SEARCH HE STATED THAT HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE UPDATED SINCE HIS ACCOUNTANT IS GONE ON LEAVE FOR HIS MARRIAGE. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ALONG WITH THE EXTRACT OF THE CASH BOOKS WHICH INDICATED THE CASH BALANCE MUCH MORE THAN THE CASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH. 5.5 SRI SUNIL KUMAR REDDY BEING THE MANAGING DIRECTOR O F THE SNR NIRMAN INDIA PVT. LTD (PAN: AAMCS3009A) BROUGHT A PORTION OF CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE TO HIS RESIDENCE WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE RESIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT ALSO SINCE FATHER AND SON ARE STAYING TOGETHER. HENCE THE CASH FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE IS THE CASH BELONGING TO SNR NIRMAN INDIA PVT. LTD. IN THE COURSE OF A PPE AL P ROCEEDIN G S IN THE CASE OF SNR NIRMAN INDIA PVT. LTD IN I. T.A NO.269/2016 - 17 DETAILED SUBMISSIONS IN THIS RE G ARD WERE MADE EX PLAINING THE I TA NO. 519 /HYD /20 18 NA RASIMHA REDDY SAMA, HYD. : - 6 - : FACT THAT THE SAID COM AN IS CA P ABLE OF HOLDIN G T HE CASH BALANCE FOUND BOTH AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED IN THE NAME OF SNR NIRMAN INDIA PVT. LTD IS PLACED AT PAGES 1 TO 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IT ~. IS 'PRAYED THAT THE S AID SUBMISSION BE TREATED AS PART OF THE SUBMISSIONS IN THE APPELLANTS CASE ALSO. IT IS ALSO HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT IN THE APPEAL DECIDED IN THE CASE OF SNR NIRMAN INDIA PVT. LTD AFTER EXAMINING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ADDITIONS MADE WAS DELETED. 5. 6 FOR THE ABOVE REASONS IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH BALANCE OF RS.17,20, 000/ - FOUND AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT BEING THE CASH BALANCE OF SNR NIRMAN INDIA PVT. LTD IS FULLY EXPLAINABLE AND HENCE NO ADDITION WHATSOEVER IS TAILED FO R. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR THE APPELLANT RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.51,30,366 IN CASH AS PARTNERS REMUNERATION TAXED SEPARATELY. PART OF THE SAID REMUNERATION IS ALSO AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT. 6.1 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS ME OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO IN T HE IMPUGNED ORDER. CASH OF RS.17,20, 000 / - WAS FOUND AT THE AS SESSEE'S PREMISES DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, OUT OF WHICH, RS.17, 00,000 / - WAS SEIZED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CASH FOUND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS U NDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, AND ADDED IT TO HIS TOTAL INCOME. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE'S AR DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THAT AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 03 - 12 - 2015, I TA NO. 519 /HYD /20 18 NA RASIMHA REDDY SAMA, HYD. : - 7 - : R S.17, 0 0,000 / - BELONGED TO HIS SON. HOWEVER, FROM THE PERUSAL OF STATEMENT RECORDED AT TIME OF SEARCH, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD STATED THAT THE AMOUNT BELONGED TO HIS WIFE, AND WAS RECEIVED BY HIM FROM HER MOTHER. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION WAS FILED, BECAUSE OF WHICH, RS.17, 00,000 / - WAS SEIZED. NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO. NOW, AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE'S AR HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE CASH BY SAYING IT IS OUT OF CASH BELO NGING TO SNR NIRMAN INDIA, AND THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THAT CASE DELETED, THIS ADDITION SHOULD ALSO BE DELETED. THIS CONTENTION, HOWEVER, IS WITHOUT ANY MERITS, AND IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE WHOLE STORY OF THE CASH FOUND BELONGING TO SNR INDIA IS MERELY AN AF TER - THOUGHT, WHICH HAS BEEN COOKED UP, AFTER DRAWING UP THE CASH BOOK OF SNR INDIA AND FINDING THAT CASH IS AVAILABLE THEREIN. HAD THE CASH FOUND IN FACT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE'S SON, HE WOULD HAVE STATED SO ON THE DATE OF SEARCH ITSELF. ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, HE STATED THAT IT BELONGED TO HIS WIFE; AND WHEN UNABLE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM, HE HAS COME UP WITH THE STORY OF THE CASH BELONGIN G TO HIS SON'S COMPANY. THE CASH FOUND IS THEREFORE CLEARLY UNEXPLAINED, AND THE ADDITION MADE IS CONFIRMED. ALL GROUNDS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WHILE, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE OF THE SNR NIRMAN INDIA (P) LTD. IN ITA NO. 0269/2016 - 17, DATED 05/12/2017 DECIDED BY THE SAME CIT(A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE THAT THE COMPANY HAD SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE AND THE CASH OF RS. I TA NO. 519 /HYD /20 18 NA RASIMHA REDDY SAMA, HYD. : - 8 - : 15,00,000/ - WAS ACCEPTED WHICH WAS SEIZED . IN THIS REGARDS THE SUBMISSIONS W ERE MADE WHICH ARE AT PARA NO. 5. 2 EXTRACTED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AT PAGE NO. 03, 04 & 05 . 7.1 THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF SNR NIRMAL INDIA (P) LT D. AND IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ARE SAME. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT AGREED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED CASE WITH DETAILED REASONS . WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT BEFORE THE AO THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE CASH BELONGED TO HIS SON, WHEREAS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH BELONG ING TO SNR NIRMAN INDIA PVT. LTD. IN WHICH THE ASSESSEES SON IS MANAGING DIRECTOR. THE CATEGORICAL FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ARE THAT THE CONTENTION, HOW EVER, IS WITHOUT ANY MERITS, AND IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE WHOLE STORY OF THE CASH FOUND BELONGING TO SNR INDIA IS MERELY AN AFTER - THOUGHT, WHICH HAS BEEN COOKED UP, AFTER DRAWING UP THE CASH BOOK OF SNR INDIA AND FINDING THAT CASH IS AVAILABLE THEREIN. HAD THE CASH FOUND IN FACT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE'S SON, HE WOULD HAVE STATED SO ON THE DATE OF SEARCH ITSELF. ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, HE STATED THAT IT BELONGED TO HIS WIFE; AND WHEN UNABLE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE FOR THIS CLAIM, HE HAS COME UP WITH THE STORY OF TH E CASH BELONGING TO HIS SON'S COMPANY. THE CASH FOUND IS THEREFORE CLEARLY UNEXPLAINED, AND THE ADDITION MADE IS CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE I TA NO. 519 /HYD /20 18 NA RASIMHA REDDY SAMA, HYD. : - 9 - : AO AS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNA BLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT THE CASH EITHER BELONGING TO HIS SON OR BELONGING TO SNR INDIA OR HIS WIFE BY WAY OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. EVEN BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ASSESSEES CASE BY WAY OF PROPER EXPLANATION O R DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. MERELY, IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN CASE OF M/S SNR NIRMAL INDIA (P) LTD. ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUBSTANTIATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHANGED HIS STAND ON DIFFERENT LEVELS OF THE PROCEEDINGS. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION, HE STATED THAT THE CASH BELONGS TO HIS WIFE AND AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE STATED THAT THE CASH BELONGS TO HIS SON. FURTHER, HE STATED THAT IT BELONGS TO SNR NIRMAL INDIA (P) LTD. AS PER SECTION 292C OF THE IT ACT, IT WOULD BE PRESUMED THAT THE MONEY WAS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, WE REPRODUCE THE SECTION 292C AS UNDER: 292C. (1) WHERE ANY BOOKS OF ACC OUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING ARE OR IS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PERSON IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A, IT MAY, IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS AC T, BE PRESUMED (I) THAT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING BELONG OR BELONGS TO SUCH PERSON; (II) THAT THE CONTENTS OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE; AND (III) THAT THE SIGNATURE AND EVERY OTHER PART OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH PURPORT TO BE IN THE HANDWRITING OF ANY PARTICULAR PERSON OR WHICH MAY REASONABLY I TA NO. 519 /HYD /20 18 NA RASIMHA REDDY SAMA, HYD. : - 10 - : BE ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY, OR TO BE IN THE HANDWRITING OF, ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, A RE IN THAT PERSONS HANDWRITING, AND IN THE CASE OF A DOCUMENT STAMPED, EXECUTED OR ATTESTED, THAT IT WAS DULY STAMPED AND EXECUTED OR ATTESTED BY THE PERSON BY WHOM IT PURPORTS TO HAVE BEEN SO EXECUTED OR ATTESTED. (2) WHERE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DO CUMENTS OR ASSETS HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO THE REQUISITIONING OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132A, THEN, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB - SECTION (1) SHALL APPLY AS IF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN INTO CUST ODY FROM THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OR CLAUSE (C), AS THE CASE MAY BE, OF SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 132A, HAD BEEN FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF THAT PERSON IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132. 7.2 AS PER THE ABOVE SECTION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CASH WAS FOUND IN THE ASSESSEES RESIDENTIAL PREMISES, WHICH WAS NOT EXPLAINED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO WITH CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AS WELL AS BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALSO. WE, THEREFORE, RELYING ON THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE, 72 ITR 807 SC A ND THE CASE OF SUMATHI DAYAL VS. CIT, 1995 AIR 2109, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JU LY , 2021 . SD/ - SD/ - ( S.S. GODARA ) (L . P . SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDE RABAD, DATED : 15 TH JU LY , 20 2 1 . K V I TA NO. 519 /HYD /20 18 NA RASIMHA REDDY SAMA, HYD. : - 11 - : C OPY TO : 1 NARASIMHA REDDY SAMA, C/O CH. PARTHASARATHY & CO., 1 - 1 - 298/2/B/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOWBHAGYA AVENUE, ST. NO. 1, ASHOKNAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 020. 2 AC IT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3) , 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 029. 3 C I T(A) 12, HYDERABAD. 4 PR. CIT (CENTRAL) , HYDERABAD. 5 ITAT, DR, HYDERABAD. 6 GUARD FILE.