Back
Dismisses Babu's Review of ₹10 Crore Cash Credit for Lack of Diligence
The has firmly shut the door on a taxpayer’s attempt to reopen a ₹10 crore addition, dismissing a review application for want of . A comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that the petitioner, V. Babu, failed to discharge the under , and that the evidence now sought to be introduced was readily available during the original proceedings. The ruling underscores the limited scope of and the critical importance of in tax litigation.
The case originated from the -08, when Babu, engaged in civil contract work, declared a total income of ₹16,27,456. During a survey under in , the Revenue discovered a ₹10 crore credit in his personal bank account, deposited on . Babu explained that had made the payment as an at the behest of his friend, K.R. Elangovan. He claimed to have retained only ₹3 lakh as commission and transferred the remaining ₹9.97 crore to .
The Assessing Officer rejected this explanation and treated the entire amount as under Section 68. The and the affirmed the addition. Babu’s subsequent appeal to the High Court was dismissed in for want of a , and his before the was dismissed in .
The Review Application and Alleged New Evidence
Nearly a decade later, Babu moved for a review of the dismissal, placing reliance on two categories of documents: sale deeds obtained under the and an ITAT order in the case of . He argued that the sale deeds showed that the recipient of the funds was , a partnership represented by C. Karthikeyan, and not him in his individual capacity. The ITAT order, he contended, had remitted a similar matter for fresh consideration, warranting a relook at his case.
The Revenue opposed the application, asserting that there was no . It pointed out that the ₹10 crore had been credited directly into Babu’s personal account, and that he had never established the identity and or the .
and the “ ” Doctrine
The High Court began by reaffirming the well-settled legal position under Section 68: the rests squarely on the assessee to prove three elements—the , the , and the . Only if the assessee discharges this burden does it shift to the Revenue.
The Bench observed that Babu’s explanation—that he merely accommodated the transaction and passed the funds to a third party—had already been examined and rejected by the tax authorities as unsatisfactory. The judges noted:
“A or routing of funds through a personal bank account does not discharge the statutory burden under Section 68 of the Act.”
This statement is significant for practitioners. It establishes that an assessee cannot avoid Section 68 by claiming to be a or by pointing to an eventual onward transfer of funds. The court treated the entire ₹10 crore credit as the assessee’s undisclosed income, notwithstanding the purported commission arrangement.
and the Limits of
Turning to the new documents, the court found that both the sale deeds (executed in ) and the ITAT order (dated ) were part of the public record long before the original appellate proceedings concluded. Babu had failed to demonstrate any diligence in locating and producing them at the appropriate time.
The emphasized that is not an appellate channel in disguise. It exists only to correct errors apparent on the face of the record, not to permit a rehearing of the case on the same facts. The court stated:
“In this case, the documents now relied upon by the assessee (sale deeds of and tribunal orders of ) were available in public records during the original assessment and appellate proceedings. The assessee failed to demonstrate . Re-evaluating the same set of factual explanations under the guise of 'new material' amounts to seeking a re-hearing of the appeal, which strictly forbids.”
The court concluded that the ₹10 crore credit remained undisputed in amount, and the assessee’s factual narrative had been thoroughly considered and rejected. No error, much less an apparent error, had been shown. Accordingly, the review application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Implications for Tax Litigation
The judgment serves as a cautionary tale for taxpayers and their advisors. It reinforces the high threshold for admitting fresh evidence at the review stage—evidence that was accessible but not proactively gathered will rarely constitute a ground for review. The decision also clarifies that the “ ” defense is insufficient to discharge the when funds are credited to the assessee’s own account.
For the Revenue, the ruling is a welcome affirmation of the principle that unexplained cash credits cannot be wished away by pointing to an or a third-party recipient. The court’s observation on “ ” is likely to be cited in future Section 68 disputes.
The case also highlights the finality of appellate decisions in tax matters. Once the High Court and the have spoken, reopening the case via review requires more than a second wind of argument—it demands and diligent use of available evidence.
In an era where tax litigants often attempt to relitigate settled issues through multiple layers of review, the has sent a clear signal: the doors of review are not open for a fresh adversarial contest. , not hindsight, governs the fate of .
