RANGASAMY PALANISAMY, COIMBATORE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , COIMBATORE

ITA 594/CHNY/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Rangasamy Palanisamy against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the addition of Rs.57.65 lakhs to the assessee's income. This amount represented cash deposits in two bank accounts, which the AO considered as unexplained income. The assessee, engaged in real estate as a commission agent and broker, claimed that these deposits were from transactions where he acted as a facilitator. The Tribunal noted that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had adequately examined the documents provided by the assessee, leading to the decision to remit the matter back to the AO for a thorough examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 132696 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ ᭠यायपीठ,चे᳖ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ᮰ीमहावीर ᳲसह, उपा᭟यᭃ एवं ᮰ी मनोज कुमार अᮕवाल, लेखा सद᭭य के समᭃ BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 594/CHNY/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ /Assessment Year:2013-14 Shri Rangasamy Palanisamy, 3B, Subbathal Layout, Cross No.2, Rathinapuri, Coimbatore – 641 027. PAN: AGEPP 8207C v. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 2(4), Coimbatore. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : None ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19.04.2023 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: 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. 2 I.T.A. No.594/Chny/2022 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) upholding the addition of Rs.57.65 lakhs being cash deposit in two bank account. 3. 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. No. Name and address of the depositor Name of the bank Amount deposited Filer branch name and address 1. R. Palanisamy 3-B, Subbathal Layout, Rathinapuri, Coimbatore-27. Canara Bank 2890000 Anakkatty III-13, Canara Bank Building-B, Anakkatty Main Road, Anakkatty Palakkad, Kerala- 678581 2. R. Palanisamy 3-B, SubbathalLayout, IIIrd Cross Street, Rathinapuri, Coimbatore – 641104 State Bank of India 2875000 14254 Velliankadu 2/131, A Kunda Main Road, Velliankadu, 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 I.T.A. No.594/Chny/2022 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. b) A photocopy where three DDs issued to Sri T. Sivasamy and his father Sri S Thangavelu was issued by banks. c) One copy of sale deed dt. 16/4/2013 for Rs.5820000/- wherein in the capacity of POA holder for Sri Hari Khemchand, Sri R. Palanisamy purchased 2.91 acres of land from 8 persons. But the AO without carrying out any further enquiry considered the entire cash deposits as income of the assessee and made addition to the returned income for an amount of Rs.57.65 lakhs. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 4. 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 I.T.A. No.594/Chny/2022 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. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before us. 5. 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 I.T.A. No.594/Chny/2022 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. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19 th April, 2023 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज कुमार अᮕवाल) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (महावीर ᳲसह ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा᭟यᭃ /VICE PRESIDENT चे᳖ई/Chennai, ᳰदनांक/Dated, the 19 th April, 2023 RSR आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुᲦ /CIT 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध/DR 5. गाडᭅ फाईल/GF.