RANGASAMY PALANISAMY,COIMBATORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , COIMBATORE

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A),Coimbatore- 2/10361/2016-17 dated 14.06.2022. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Coimbatore for the assessment year 2013-14 u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 23.03.2016.

Brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in the real estate business as commission agent and broker. During the relevant financial year 2012-13 relevant to assessment year 2013-14, the AO noticed that there are cash deposits in savings bank accounts as per information from 26AS and hence, he required the assessee to explain the following cash deposits:- Sl. Name and address of Name of the Amount Filer branch name and No. the depositor bank deposited address 1. R. Palanisamy Canara Bank 2890000 Anakkatty 3-B, Subbathal Layout, III-13, Canara Bank Rathinapuri, Building-B, Anakkatty Coimbatore-27. Main Road, Anakkatty Palakkad, Kerala- 678581 2. R. Palanisamy State Bank of 2875000 14254 Velliankadu 3-B, SubbathalLayout, India 2/131, A Kunda Main IIIrd Cross Street, Road, Velliankadu, Rathinapuri, Coimbatore – 641104. Coimbatore – 641104 There is no dispute about deposits made in HDFC Bank Ltd., in Coimbatore Branch and Mumbai Branch. The dispute is regarding the deposits made in Canara Bank at Rs.28.90 lakhs and deposits in State Bank of India at Rs.28.75 lakhs that means total Rs.57.65 3 lakhs. The assessee explained vide letter dated 21.03.2016 that the cash deposits made during the financial year in Canara Bank and SBI in total to Rs.57.65 lakhs is on account of cash received from buyer and paid to the seller. He only claimed to have been facilitator of the transaction. In support of his claim, he submitted the following documents:- a) Copy of one general power of attorney dt.18/5/2007, wherein one Mr.Hari Khemchand authorizes him to purchase movable and immovable properties on behalf of him.

The CIT(A) just simpliciter confirmed the action of the AO by observing in para 5.17 & 5.18 as under:- 5.1.7 Thus, there is no occasion, I am afraid, to give any relief whatsoever as neither in the impugned assessment proceedings nor in the appeal proceedings the appellant has produced a single piece of paper what to say, any evidence (documentary or otherwise) which may have entitled the appellant to claim any relief. 4 5.1.8 In the light of above discussion, the action of Ld AO in making of impugned addition of Rs. 57,65, 000 is found to be in order and sustainable in the facts of the case and in law. Thus, the addition of Rs. 57,65,000 is confirmed as the appellant fails to get any relief on account of non production of any evidence both in assessment proceeding as well as in these appeal proceedings.

Despite many opportunities none is present from assessee’s side. Going through the issue we decided to decide the issue ex- parte qua assessee. We have heard ld. Senior DR and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that neither the AO nor CIT(A), despite many evidences filed by assessee has not carried out any enquiry as to how and which buyer has given cash to assessee and cash received from buyers were deposited by assessee in his bank account. The assessee has produced general power of attorney for purchase of immovable property from one Shri Hari Khemchand and one Shri T.Sivasamy and his father Shri S. Thangavelu. Since none of the authorities below have examined the above stated documents, the ld.Senior DR fairly agreed that matter can be remitted back to the file of the AO for considering the above stated documents and examination of the same. Needless to say, the AO can ask the assessee to produce these persons or the buyers who has given cash to assessee which was deposited in the bank 5 account of the assessee i.e., Canara Bank and SBI. In term of the above, we remit this issue back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.