MANJU DUDALA,HYDERABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD.

आआआआ आआआआआआ आआआआआआ, आआआआआआआआ आआआ
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad

BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आ.आआआ.आआ /ITA No.665/Hyd/2024
(आआआआआआआआ आआआआ/Assessment Year:2017-18)

Manju Dudala,
Hyderabad.
PAN:BQCPM0777M

Vs.
Income Tax Officer,
Ward-11(3), Hyderabad.
(Appellant)

(Respondent)

आआआआआआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Assessee by:
Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.A.
आआआआआआ आआआआआआ/Revenue by:: Shri SPG Mudaliar, SR-DR

आआआआआआ आआ आआआआआ/Date of hearing:
02/01/2025
आआआआआ आआ
आआआआआ/Pronouncement:
08/01/2025

आआआआ/ORDER
PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M:

This appeal is filed by Manju Dudala (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned
Commissioner of Income
Tax
(Appeals),
National
Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 29.02.2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds :
“ 1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is not correct either on facts or in law and in both.

ITA No.665/Hyd/2024 2

ITA No.665/Hyd/2024 3

then only the assessee came to know that their appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) has been dismissed. As soon as the assessee came to knew the same, she filed the appeal before the ITAT. Due to the reasons as stated above, the filing of appeal before the ITAT get delayed by 72 days. Therefore, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT which is unintentional and was beyond the control of the assessee. After considering the submission of the Ld. AR and after hearing the Learned Department Representative (“Ld. DR”), the delay of 72 days in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual, filed her Return of Income (“ROI”) for A.Y. 2017-18
on 16.08.2017 admitting the total income of Rs.2,65,500/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS due to “large cash deposits during demonetisation period and business return filed for the first time”. From the available records of the assessee, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) found that, there was cash deposits of Rs.24,96,405/- during the demonetization period and there was total credit in the bank account of the assessee amounting to Rs.1,01,06,633/- during the year under consideration. The Ld. AO issued notices to the assessee and called for the explanation with regard to cash deposit of Rs.24,96,405/- and total credit of Rs.1,01,06,633/- in the bank accounts. However, the assessee did not responded to the notices of the Ld. AO. Finally, the Ld. AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Income

ITA No.665/Hyd/2024 4

Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on 17.12.2019 by treating the excess of total credit in bank account of Rs.1,01,06,633/- over the returned income of Rs.3,10,500/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,01,06,633/-.
4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained that the assessee is an authorized APT On Line Limited (“APT”) franchisee owner and providing Mee Seva and utility bill payment services to public on behalf of the APT. While providing these services, the assessee collected cash from the public against the service provided and deposit the cash so collected in her bank account and subsequently, transfer the amount to APT. For providing these services, the assessee gets commission from the APT. The Ld. AR also submitted that the husband of the assessee is also an authorized franchisee owner of Telangana State Technology Services Limited
(“TSTSL”) and provide services to public, collect cash for those services, deposit the cash into the bank account and finally transfer the amount to Payu Payments Private Limited (“Payu”) on account of TSTSL. For providing these services, her husband also received commission from TSTSL. In support of the services provided by the assessee, the Ld. AR filed the following documents before the Ld.
CIT(A) :
i) License in the name of Manju Dudala and transaction summary issued by APT.

ITA No.665/Hyd/2024 5

ii) License in the name of assessee's husband along with transaction summary.
iii) Copies of 26AS for A.Y. 2017-18 of the assessee and her husband.
On the basis of aforesaid documents, the assessee demonstrated before the Ld. CIT(A) that, the assessee had made transactions of Rs.45,23,898.16 with APT and her husband had made transactions of Rs.91,59,468.83 with TSTSL. The assessee also submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that, the assessee and her husband for their business purpose were using the bank account with State Bank of India (“SBI”) and Union Bank of India (“UBI”) and both the bank accounts were on the name of assessee only. The total deposit of Rs.1,01,06,633/- in bank account as found out by the Ld. AO consisting of deposit of Rs.97,96,133/- in SBI and Rs.1,40,062/- in UBI. On the basis of the submissions of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) found that all the deposits in the banks were in cash except total deposit of Rs.2,73,621/-. Finally, the Ld. CIT(A) accepted the transactions in bank on account of the transfer made by the assessee to APT amounting to Rs.45,23,898/- and amount of deposit in bank otherwise through cash of Rs.2,73,621/- and deleted the addition.
Finally, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs.53,09,114/- contending that, the assessee could not show the amount transferred from the bank account separately to APT/ Payu, although the Ld.

ITA No.665/Hyd/2024 6

CIT(A) accepted that the transfer made to Payu from the bank account.
5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. In addition to the submission made before the Ld.
CIT(A), the Ld. AR produced before us, the reconciliation of the total amount transferred from SBI showing separately the amount transferred to APT and Payu which is to the following effect :
Reconciliation of the total credits in the SBI Bank A/c. No.62463875645
S.No.
Particulars
Amount (Rs.)
Total (Rs.)
1
Total transaction amount as certified by APT Online Ltd. (For Manju
Dudala)
45,23,898.16

2
Total transaction amount as certified by TSTS Ltd. (For Hari Babu)
91,59,468.83

Total

1,36,83,366.99
Less: Total transaction amount credited through Manju Dudala in SBI A/c. No.
62463875645
1,28,30,621.12

Less:
Transaction amount for April (not reflected in the SBI bank account)
(Bank A/c. Opening date : 29.04.2024)
1,28,260
1,29,58,881.12

Balance amount paid directly to the Principal Agent as per convenience of the assessee (Manju Dudala) as she was managing family matters due to her husband’s health issues.

7,24,485.87

From the above reconciliation, the Ld. AR submitted that, the amount related to the business of husband of the assessee was also transferred from the bank account, which is in the name of the assessee.
Accordingly, the cash received from the business of her husband were ITA No.665/Hyd/2024 7

also deposited in the same bank account. Finally, the Ld. AR prayed before the bench to delete the addition made by the Ld. AO.
6. Per contra, the Ld. DR relying on the order of revenue authority, prayed before the bench to dismiss the appeal of the assessee.
7. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the record in the light of the submissions made by either side. We have gone through the bank statement of SBI (page nos.3 to 30 of paper book), bank statement of UBI (page nos.31 to 34 of paper book), copy of transaction report from APT (page no.35 of paper book), copy of the license issued by TSTSL (page no.36 of paper book), copy of 26AS for A.Y. 2017-18 of the assessee and husband of the assessee
(page nos.37 to 40 of paper book). We have also gone through the transaction report issued by TSTSL and the reconciliation of the total transfer made from the bank account of the assessee. On going through all these documents, we found that, the bank account in the name of the assessee have been used for the transactions executed by her husband also. All the cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee are cash received from customers out of business of assessee as well as her husband and deposited in bank accounts were utilized for making payment to APT (for assessee's own business) and to Payu
(for business of assessee's husband). Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that, the amount of cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee either related to her own business or the business of her husband. Accordingly, we found the sources of cash

ITA No.665/Hyd/2024 8

deposited in the bank accounts of the assessee as explained.
Therefore, we are inclined to accept the submissions of the assessee and accordingly delete the addition of Rs.53,09,114/- sustained by the Ld. CIT(A).
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 8th Jan., 2025. (K. NARASIMHA CHARY)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad.
Dated: 08.01.2025. * Reddy gp

Copy of the Order forwarded to :

BY ORDER,