2019 (2) TMI 1207 - HC - Income Tax

Unaccounted expenditure - Unexplained source of cash - Held that - The two revenue authorities and the Tribunal concurrently came to the conclusion that the amount of ₹ 6 Lacs represented the assessee s unaccounted expenditure. Secondly, the Tribunal did not accept the assessee s explanation that the amount was withdrawn from the bank account and gave to Ms. Rani Mukherjee for safe keeping on the ground that it is difficult to believe that a person who withdraws money from the bank account gives it to someone else for safe keeping. The assessee had not offered any explanation why he took such a recourse. It was not the case of the assessee that he needed urgent cash on hand for which purpose such withdrawal was made. All in all, the entire issue is factual. No perversity in the findings is pointed out. No question of law arises.

Summary

Issues:
1. Treatment of actual liabilities due to Mr. Abhishek Bachchan and Mr. Amitab Bachchan as non-existent.
2. Ignoring voluntary offer to tax liabilities due to Mr. Abhishek Bachchan and Mr. Amitab Bachchan in a different assessment year.
3. Treatment of a liability given for safe custody as unaccounted expenditure.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's judgment regarding the treatment of liabilities due to Mr. Abhishek Bachchan and Mr. Amitab Bachchan as non-existent for the assessment year 2001-02. The Tribunal's decision was questioned on the grounds of factual and legal justifications. The appellant contended that the liabilities were valid, but the Tribunal did not acknowledge their existence. The issue revolves around the acceptance and recognition of these liabilities for taxation purposes.

2. The second issue pertains to the Tribunal's decision to ignore the appellant's voluntary offer to tax the liabilities due to Mr. Abhishek Bachchan and Mr. Amitab Bachchan in a different assessment year when the liabilities became time-barred. The appellant argued that this voluntary disclosure should have been considered by the Tribunal in the assessment for the relevant year. The dispute involves the timing and implications of the voluntary tax offer made by the appellant.

3. The third issue arises from a background related to a search action against Ms. Rani Mukherjee, during which cash was found in her locker, part of which was attributed to the appellant for safekeeping. The appellant's explanation regarding the source of the cash, withdrawals from the bank, and the purpose of handing it to Ms. Rani Mukherjee for safe custody was not accepted by the authorities. The matter was treated as unaccounted expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant's contentions regarding the source of the cash and the circumstances of the transaction were disputed by the authorities.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on the treatment of the liabilities due to Mr. Abhishek Bachchan and Mr. Amitab Bachchan. The Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities and the Tribunal. Regarding the liability given for safe custody, the Court noted that the appellant's explanations were not accepted, and the addition of unaccounted expenditure was upheld. The Court declined to entertain Question No. (iii) and indicated that Questions (i) and (ii) substantially overlapped. The matter was adjourned for further hearing, with observations that implementing the Tribunal's remarks could potentially resolve the appellant's grievances.