VANAJA PAREPALLY,SURYAPET vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , SURYAPET

PDF · subscribers
ITA 651/HYD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 August 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the bank statements clearly showed corresponding transfers to IRCTC and APSRTC for the deposits, indicating genuine business transactions. The marginal increase in declared income compared to the previous year also supported the assessee's claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a travel agent, had cash deposits of Rs. 5.83 lakhs in their bank account during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) made additions as the assessee failed to substantiate the source of these deposits with documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in the bank account during demonetization, which are supported by corresponding transfers for business purposes, can be added as unexplained income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY

Hearing: 26/07/2024

अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri S.Sandhya, Adv रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 26/07/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement on: 14/08/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 24/04/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Vanaja Parepally (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal.

2.

Assessee is an individual and claimed to have been earning income being a travel agent, engaged in booking rail tickets, flight tickets and bus tickets etc. The Assessing Officer found that during the demonetization period, there were cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee to the tune of Rs.5.83 lakhs. The Assessing Officer recorded that the assessee did not substantiate his claim as to the source of impugned deposits being the amount for booking the tickets. On that score, the Assessing Officer made the addition of entire Rs.5.83 lakhs.

3.

Assessee preferred appeal and pleaded the same thing before the Ld.CIT(A) also. The Ld.CIT(A) also recorded that the assessee did not show any business income in his return and failed to furnish any documentary evidence to demonstrate that the cash deposits were made from the business receipts. The Ld.CIT(A) accordingly dismissed the appeal.

4.

Hence, this appeal by the assessee contending that for the earlier Assessment Year, 2016-17, the assessee filed the return of income, showing an income of Rs.3 lakhs, whereas, for the Assessment Year 2017- 18, the assessee declared an income of Rs.3,28,900/- and there is no unusual increase in his income. Ld.AR further submitted that the bank account clearly shows that for every deposit, there are corresponding transfers to IRCTC or APSRTC etc. and this fact is recorded in the bank statement for the period earlier to the demonetization period also. Inspite of submitting all these bank statements etc. the authorities did not believe the version of the assessee and made the addition.

5.

Ld.DR submitted that the assessee did not submit any papers before the authorities and this fact is evidenced by the impugned order also. In the absence of any documentary evidence produced by the assessee, the authorities are justified in making and upholding the addition.

6.

I have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made either side. The bank statements produced by the assessee clearly establishes that the assessee has been regularly transferring the amounts from his account to IRCTC and also APSRTC etc. and all these entries evidencing the deposits and transfers established that the assessee has been regularly dealing with the booking of tickets for transport either by bus, train or flight. Further, the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2016-17 clearly shows that the assessee had shown income of Rs.3 lakhs

Page 2 of 3 for that year, whereas for the Assessment Year 2017-18, he had shown at Rs.3,28,900/. The increase in such income is very marginal and does not indicate any abnormal activity to arise any suspicion. The turnover of the assessee is only that much as of the earlier year. The bank statement entries establish that for the deposits, there are corresponding transfers to IRCTC and APSRTC etc. In these circumstances, I do not find anything to suspect the case of the assessee and while believing it, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.

7.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →