2025 (3) TMI 1288 - SCH - Income Tax

Addition of cash deposit u/s 68 - Ownership of bank accounts and cash deposits - substantial question of law or fact - as decided by HC 2024 (5) TMI 1474 - DELHI HIGH COURT 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 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. As decided by SC 2024 (10) TMI 432 - SC ORDER we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. Hence the Special Leave Petition is dismissed HELD THAT - Application for discharge of previous Advocate-on-record is allowed. Having perused the review petition we find that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. No case for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 has been established. Review Petition is therefore dismissed.

Summary

**Supreme Court Judgment Summary****Case Citation:** TMI**Judges:** Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta**Order:**1. The application for the discharge of the previous Advocate-on-record is approved. 2. Upon reviewing the petition, the Court determined that "there is no error apparent on the face of the record." Consequently, no grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 have been demonstrated.3. The Review Petition is dismissed.