2024 (5) TMI 1474 - HC - Income Tax

Addition of cash deposit u/s 68 - Ownership of bank accounts and cash deposits - substantial question of law or fact - principal argument which was sought to be addressed on this appeal was that various transactions which fell for scrutiny were not undertaken in the accounts of the assessee. HELD THAT - This argument essentially requires us to delve into facts and which do not even appear to have been either raised or urged before the ITAT. In any case such a course would not be merited bearing in mind the limited scope of this appeal and which stands confined to the consideration of a substantial question of law. We find no merit in the appeal. Consequently the appeal fails and shall stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Alleged serious error and gross illegality in tax assessment process
2. Tax liability based on consent without legal basis
3. Legality of addition to income under Section 68 of Income Tax Act
4. Ownership of bank accounts and cash deposits
5. Filing of revised return under compulsion
6. Allegations against assessing authorities
7. Admission of filing revised return and related tax
8. Levy of tax without affording a hearing
9. Refusal to entertain rectification request

Analysis:

1. The appellant raised concerns about the tax assessment process, alleging serious errors and illegality by the authorities in blindly levying tax without considering available records or the appellant's ownership in bank accounts with cash deposits. The appellant questioned the legality of tax imposition without establishing ownership or beneficial interest in the accounts in question.

2. The issue of tax liability based on consent without a legal basis was raised, invoking Article 265 of the Constitution. The appellant argued that taxing without a legal liability, especially when not owning or benefiting from the cash deposits, would be unconstitutional.

3. The legality of adding income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was challenged, particularly in the context of cash deposits in accounts belonging to the appellant's family members. The appellant contended that such additions were illegal and unconstitutional.

4. The ownership of bank accounts and cash deposits came into question, with the appellant disputing oral admissions and highlighting the lack of examination by the assessing officer. The appellant claimed that the assessing officer did not allow inspection of relevant documents or provide an opportunity to explain certain deposits.

5. The appellant argued that filing a revised return and making a deposit under duress, allegedly to "buy peace," should not lead to tax imposition. It was contended that such actions were not voluntary but compelled by circumstances.

6. Allegations were made against the assessing authorities for conducting proceedings in an illegal and unjust manner, causing harassment and injustice to the appellant. The appellant claimed that the authorities had failed to follow due process and had unnecessarily increased revenue litigation.

7. The issue of admission regarding filing a revised return and related tax payment to "buy peace" was raised. The appellant questioned whether such actions could be considered voluntary consent and whether the imposed tax was legal under constitutional provisions.

8. The appellant challenged the levy of tax on a specific cash deposit without being afforded a hearing, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The appellant argued that taxing without providing an opportunity to explain amounted to a legal and constitutional breach.

9. The refusal of the Income Tax Officer to entertain a rectification request was contested, with the appellant claiming that the officer had failed to exercise jurisdiction and powers under the Income Tax Act. The appellant sought rectification of the earlier order, which was declined by the officer.

In the judgment, the court noted that the principal argument raised by the appellant regarding transactions not undertaken in the assessee's accounts was not within the scope of the appeal, which was limited to considering substantial questions of law. Consequently, the court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.