MRS. SUSHILA SHRAVAN SONDAVALE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), NAGPUR

Date of Hearing – 10/10/2024 Date of Order – 25/10/2024

O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M.

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the impugned order dated 11/01/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018–19.

“1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) dismissed the Appeal ex–parte without giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. It in on the records that the Assessee is a Senior Citizen keeping indifferent health which was intimated to leaned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) through letters seeking adjournment.

2 Mrs. Sushila Shravan Sondavale ITA no.136/Nag./2024

2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in confirming the Order of the learned Α.Ο. when the Assessee has submitted that whatever cash deposited in her Yes bank escrow account immediately gets transferred to Vodafone Mpaise Private Limited of which she is the distributor entitled only to a commission account she has no withdrawal facility from the bank account and is also entitled for commission for her services.

3. That the Commissioner of Income Tax(appeals) was not justified by confirming the Order of learned A.O. by treating the cash deposits in the YES bank Escrow account not belonging to Assessee as unexplained money U/s. 69A in the hands of the Assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. That Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in ignoring the fact that learned A.O. has made this huge addition on hands of the Assessee without verifying the facts from the bank authorities regarding nature of bank account in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The Assessee craves leave to add/alter any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

4. The Assessee is engaged with Vodafone Mpaise business as one of the distributors in the Nagpur region. The retailers were availing the benefit of deposit of cash in her account which is an escrow account with Yes Bank. The amount deposited in the said account is converted into Mpaise Money by the Vodafone Mpaise Pvt. Ltd. which is later on transferred to the respective retailers who had deposited cash or online transfer in her escrow account. The amount deposited by the retailers in the bank account of the assessee is 3 Mrs. Sushila Shravan Sondavale ITA no.136/Nag./2024 tracked by Vodafone Mpaise Pvt. Ltd. through Mobile Number of the assessee which also works as her I.D. The amount deposited by the retailers against the assessee’s I.D. is transferred to the account of Vodafone Mpaise Pvt. Ltd. by sweep system and the company in turn converts the same into Mpaise Money and transfers it back to the account of the assessee. The assessee further transfers the said amount to the retailer depositing the money. The assessee only earns a commission on the final sale of the retailers from the said Mpaise Money to the customer. The Assessee deposited the amount in her Escrow Account and earns a Commission @ 0.18% only on every transaction completed by the retailer towards the customer. Hence, to summarise, the Assessee gets 0.18% commission from Vodafone Mpaise Pvt. Ltd. on the total business generated through her. That since there was heavy cash deposited in her bank account with Yes Bank, the said transaction was reported in SFT 003 and SFT 004. The case of deposit and the return of income showed low profits. In the absence of any documents in explaining the cash deposits made by the assessee during the financial year 2017–18, the cash deposits of ` 7,05,28,208, as stated in notice dated 31/03/2021, under section 142(1) of the Act, was treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the by the Assessing Officer. Further, the Assessing Officer disregarded the submissions of the assessee and added ` 7,05,28,208, under section 69A of the Act which resulted in huge demand of ` 7,46,36,337, against the assessee.

4 Mrs. Sushila Shravan Sondavale ITA no.136/Nag./2024

“6. Finding & Decision The Assessing Officer had concrete information that there were deposits made in the account of the appellant in cash which formed the basis for assessment. Appellant was called upon through show cause notice to account for the deposits. However, the appellant merely filed the modus operandi of the business and stated that commission was her income. However, she did not furnish the details called for by the Assessing Officer which are forming part of the order. This office had issued notices calling for online submission to which the appellant did not respond. The appellant did not choose to file any additional evidence at the time of appellate proceedings to substantiate her claim. The onus is on the appellant to prove the source for cash deposits. Taking into account, the narration recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and in the absence of any documentary evidence forthcoming from the appellant substantiating the grounds taken I am constrained to uphold the assessment on account of failure on the part of the appellant to prosecute the appeal. In the result, the appeal is "Dismissed".