PRAKASH NARAIN, A. M.: first contention in this appeal, relates to determination of annual letting value of building let out to Hotel Ajay in Varanysi. assessee is one of six-co-offers of this building. He returned its annual value at Rs. 4,000 as his shares. ITO estimated annual value of entire property at Rs. 1,20,000 and determined assessee's share at Rs. 20,000. CIT (A), however, in appeal accepted declared income. department is now in appeal before us. Both parties stated before us that question of determination of A. L. V. of above property had come up for consideration of Tribunal in case of Shri Ajay Singh, son of assessee, who is also his legal representative. Tribunal in its order dt. 4th June 1983 in I. T. A. No. 656 (Alld)/1982, had held that annual letting value could be taken equal to rent actually received from Hotel Ajay. Following aforesaid order, we give same direction to ITO in year under appeal also. next contention relates to addition of Rs. 14,000 for unexplained household expenses and Rs. 34,3622 as income from other sources. They are both linked and hence are dealt with these together. ITO found that assessee had made certain deposits in his account in Hotel Ajay and further he had also made deposits in his account with Indian Bank. assessee's explanation was that above deposits were made out of his rental income and also income of his minor Shri Vinay Bahadur Singh which, according to him, was available to him. ITO did not accept explanation. In his draft order submitted to IAC for seeking directions under s. 144E of Act, he held that assessee was unable to explain source of amount of Rs. 34,362. He also suggested additions on account of low withdrawals. It was found by him that assessee had withdrawn only Rs. 4,700. He suggested addition of Rs. 19,300. Before IAC or in course of proceedings under s. 144B of Act, assessee submitted cash flow chart for various years. chart for accounting year 1977, relevant for asst. yr. 1978-79, which is now year under appeal before us, started with opening balance of Rs. 15,474. There were receipts from rent, withdrawals from savings, bank account with Indian Bank and receipts from Hotel Ajay as also receipts from Shri Vinay Bahadur Singh. On order hand, there were outgoings for L. I. P., for expenses and for various investments. It was submitted before IAC that all transactions of assessee were reflected in these charts and there was nothing which remained unexplained either for household expenses or for investments. IAC did not accept assessee's submission for two reasons. In first place, according to him, withdrawals for house-hold expenses in different years were low and in second place opening and closing balances shown in charts were hypothetical figures. As per directions of IAC, ITO held, that assessee had failed to explain source of investment of Rs. 34,362. He included this amount in assessment as assessee's income. ITO also, as per directions of IAC, estimated assessee's household expenses at Rs. 20,000 and unexplained amount at Rs. 14,000. This was also included in assessment as assessee's income. assessee appealed to CIT (A). It was submitted before him that IAC was not correct in holding that household expenses of assessee were only of Rs. 4,7000. It was pointed out to him, as was also pointed out before lower authorities, that assessee and his six sons and other members of family were staying together and had common mess. It was also pointed out to him that total withdrawals by all these persons came to Rs. 33,500, which together with agricultural income of Rs. 2,500 came to Rs. 35,000 for household expenses of family. In opinion of CIT (A) this amount was quite reasonable for meeting assessee's household expenses. He further found that assessee was in position to have funds belonging to his son Shri Vinay Bahadur Singh for investment. After going into cash flow charts he held that assessee was able to explain entire investment of Rs. 34,362. He, therefore, deleted both above additions. Department is now in appeal before us. We have heard parties. In our opinion findings of CIT (A) cannot be assailed before us. We have gone through cash flow charts and have also cross-verified some of gone through cash flow charts and have also cross-verified some of transactions with assessee's account with Hotel Ajay as also from other related accounts. It is not doubt true that assessee has not been maintaining personal books of account. However, cash flow charts can be rejected only if any of items recorded therein does not reflect correct position. Only item relating to household expenses is such item. In this connection, we agree with findings of CIT (A) that withdrawal of all members of family had to be taken into account for finding out whether expenses claimed to have been incurred for running house were reasonable. Admittedly, their withdrawals and agricultural income come to Rs. 36,000. This has been considered as reasonable sum by CIT (A) for meeting household expenses and we agree with him. Once household expenses are accepted, there remains nothing in cash flow charts to doubt its veracity. various investment found by ITO are reflected in chart and have, therefore to be accepted. We, therefore, uphold finding of CIT (A) deleting additions of Rs. 14,000 and Rs. 34,262. In result, appeal is dismissed. *** INCOME TAX OFFICER v. AJAY SINGH