ITO 32(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. SANGEETA RAJ NAIR, MUMBAI

order ,dated 11/01/2016 of the CIT(A)- 44,Mumbai,the assessee has filed present appeal.The assessee,an individual,engaged in the business of selling recharge- coupens of mobile companies and making bill payment of mobile companies and various utilities,filed her return of income on 21/01/2012 declaring total income at Rs.5 lakhs. The Assessing Officer(AO)completed assessment on 11/3/2014, u/s. 143(3) of the Act,determin- ing her income at Rs.49.60 lakhs.

2.The first Ground of appeal is about deleting the addition of Rs.41.38 lakhs on account of cash deposited in bank account.During the assessment proceedings,the AO found that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.41.38 lakhs in her savings bank account maintained by ICICI bank.He directed her to explain the source of cash deposit and to submit the bank summary of cash book for the year under consideration. As per the AO the assessee did not file any detail till the date of passing of the order.So,he held the entire cash deposit of Rs.41.38 lakhs, as reported in AIR information, was to be treated as income from undisclosed sources of the assessee.Accordingly,he made an addition of the said sum to her income. 2.1.Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before First Appellate Authority (FAA).After considering the available material,he held that the assessee had filed her return as per the provisions of section 44AD of the Act,that she was engaged in the business of selling recharge-coupons of mobile companies and bill payment of public utilities,that she would receive commission from mobile commissions after she would deposit

1200/M/16 Sangeeta Raj Nair amount in the bank accounts of the mobile companies,that she would collect cash from public and would deposit the same in her bank account, that it was not unusual for the assessee to receive amount in cash from general public, hat the recharge of mobile talk-time was generally in the denomination of Rs.100-200 or similar small amounts, that the assessee was not required to maintain books of account as she had filed return of income u/s. 44AD, that the AO had not understood the business model of the assessee. Referring to the bank statement of the assessee,he observed that there were numerous cash deposits as well as cash withdrawals in the bank account maintained by her, that there was no justification for making addition.Accordingly,he deleted the addition. 2.2.Before us,the Departmental.Represnetative(DR) relied upon the order of the AO and the Authorised Representative(AR) supported the order of the FAA . 2.3.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us.We find that the assessee had filed return of income as per section 44AD of the Act,that she was not required to maintain the regular books of account,that she was collecting money from the general public for recharging the mobile talk-time and other utilities, that she had filed the bank summary and cash book during the assessment proceedings, that the FAA had perused the bank statement and has given a categorical finding of the fact that the bank account had numerous cash deposits as well as cash withdrawals.he also held that it was not a feature of bank account where unaccounted money was stashed.Therefore,we agree with the conclusion of the FAA that AO had not understood the business model of the assessee.Confirming his order,we decide first Ground of appeal against the AO. 3.Second Ground of appeal is about deleting the addition of Rs.3.21 lakhs under the head commission income.The AO held that assessee had declared commission income of Rs.3,21, 421/-received from Vodafone and Cosmic & Matrix, that she had not declared said commission income in her return. He made the addition of the Rs.3.21 lakhs to the income of the assessee under the head income from other sources. 3.1.In the appellate proceedings,the FAA held that AO made the addition without any basis, that whole business of assessee was based on commission from mobile phone companies that the commission amount was part of total income of the assessee. The DR and the AR relied upon the order of the AO and the FAA respectively.In our opinion,the FAA has rightly held that there was no justification for making the addition.The assessee was receiving commi -

1200/M/16 Sangeeta Raj Nair ssion from mobile companies and it was shown in the statement of total income. So, upholding the order of the FAA,we decide second Ground of appeal against the AO.