2019 (4) TMI 216 - HC - Income Tax

Scope of writ petition - Challenge of Reassessment order in writ - addition of cash credits u/s 69A - dispute of ownership of bank account in the Axis Bank - availability of statutory appeal - HELD THAT - Detailed examination of facts required to appreciate the petitioner s submissions is not possible in this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the facts are themselves disputed. In this light of the matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed. The Writ petitioner is at liberty to challenge the impugned order of re-assessment by way of statutory appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within a period of one (1) month from today

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to reassessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2010-11 based on cash credits in a bank account.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner contested an order of reassessment under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 25.12.2018, concerning the assessment year 2010-11. The reassessment aimed to tax cash credits in a bank account at Axis Bank, opened during the financial year 2009-2010, allegedly in the petitioner's name.

2. Despite the petitioner's claims that the account did not belong to him, the Assessing Officer conducted inquiries with the bank. Subsequently, cash deposits amounting to ?24,20,000 out of total deposits of ?32,28,000 were treated as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.

3. The petitioner argued that the bank account did not belong to him, thus challenging the addition of cash credits to his income. The Revenue's counsel contended that verifying a bank account's ownership is a factual matter beyond the scope of the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The impugned order indicated that the Assessing Officer requested documents from the bank, including the Account Opening Form, KYC, and address proof. The petitioner disputed the authenticity of the documents, claiming they were not signed by him, and raised other objections.

5. The court held that a detailed examination of disputed facts was not feasible under Article 226. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to challenge the reassessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) within one month. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.